How do you convince people god exists?

smacl · 12-06-2019 6:04pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

As I pointed out to another user though when we are discussing gods and alien life we are not comparing like with like.

Mainly because in terms of credibility at least we DO have some supporting evidence for the latter than we do not have with the former.

US.

WE are evidence life exists in our universe. So in that stake discussing OTHER possible life in the universe does not suffer from quite the same credibility issue the existence of a god does. The god claim having zero actual precedent to work with.

A pantheist might reasonably argue that we are also that one god

Fourier · 12-06-2019 11:07pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Our resident Theoretical Physicist would disagree with you there. All those extra dimensions exist in pop culture like Star Trek sure.... but apparently it is not current Scientific Thought at all. But while I am above the lay average when it comes to the subject of Physics..... that level of it is well past my pay grade. He might wander in shortly and set you to rights.

That's correct.

According to current physics there are four dimenions. The usual three and time. The LHC has performed tests for others, but so far the results are negative. According to quantum field theory there is something "special" about four dimensions, it's the last number of dimensions before physics becomes "trivial", i.e. just a bunch of particles that "ghost" through each other without interacting. Since our universe isn't like this many doubt more dimensions exist, for our reality at least.

The only other topic I can comment on is determinism and predestination which has come up. I think what I'll say has some bearing on this issue, but I'm not sure what exactly it is.

Quantum Mechanics has revealed that for some parts of reality their futures aren't fixed by the physical facts of their past since how they behave doesn't seem to involve a mechanistic process/algorithm. Sometimes phrased as they obey no scientific laws or "There are no laws" as John Wheeler said.

The best you can do is bet on what they'll do next. This is sometimes phrased to say they're "random", but that's not quite right in the usual sense of the word. In mathematics "random" means you, the observer, are betting on things and managing your beliefs about things.

So some parts of reality are non-mechanical with unwritten futures and all one can do in terms of describing them is bet on how they'll react in various situations and make sure your bets are self-consistent.

Perhaps somebody of a philosophical bent can say more.

nozzferrahhtoo · 13-06-2019 8:03am

smacl wrote: »

A pantheist might reasonably argue that we are also that one god

I grok that thou art god - Valentine Michael Smith

4068ac1elhodqr · 13-06-2019 1:19pm

Perhaps it's just a matter of perspective for the angry atheists, once the blinkers (to very limited senses) come off?

Atheists Found "God" or "Ultimate Reality" After Taking Psychedelic Drugs:
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0214377

21% of the psychedelic users reported being atheists before their experience, while only 8% reported being atheists after.
The biggest absolute change in atheist status occurred after mystical encounters induced by DMT:
25% were atheists before their experience, versus only 7 percent (after, and when limited senses are restored).

Possibly swap {DMT} with Psilocybin (magic mushrooms), LSD, ayahuasca etc for similar results.
Other studies showed these 'medications' were useful for PTSD.

Seperately, in terms of alien life, any 'visitations' to earth would almost certainly be considered 'god-like',
- simply thanks to their obvious 'significantly advanced evolutions/inteligence', in being able to travel here in the 1st place.

nozzferrahhtoo · 13-06-2019 1:25pm

Dean Broad Mound wrote: »

Perhaps it's just a matter of perspective for the angry atheists, once the blinkers (to very limited senses) come off?

Atheists Found "God" or "Ultimate Reality" After Taking Psychedelic Drugs:

Isn't it interesting though? NDE has the same effect sometimes on people who were atheist then stopped.

What is interesting to me is that this is something theists are proud of rather than embarrassed by. After all what they are saying is that people move from rational atheism to faith based theism...... when their cognitive faculties have been compromised physically or chemically or emotionally in an extreme fashion.

If I had a claim, and people tended to only believe that claim when they were compromised rationally..... I would not be touting that fact with any level of pride to be honest. Rather I would be deeply concerned that people had to LOSE critical faculties and rationality and coherence for my claim to be more plausible to them.

Death bed conversions please theists it seems. From where I sit, it should be massively embarrassing to them and at best pandiculation for me.

smacl · 13-06-2019 2:22pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

What is interesting to me is that this is something theists are proud of rather than embarrassed by. After all what they are saying is that people move from rational atheism to faith based theism...... when their cognitive faculties have been compromised physically or chemically or emotionally in an extreme fashion.

Early religions also depended on drugs, i.e. entheogens, in order to get the full religious experience. Huxley similarly talks about achieving sacramental visions on peyote in 'The doors of perception', so drug induced religious euphoria is hardly anything new. Unless there was a permanent change to the brain chemistry, one would expect most rational atheists to return to atheism once they've finished tripping.

Bannasidhe · 13-06-2019 3:08pm

smacl wrote: »

Early religions also depended on drugs, i.e. entheogens, in order to get the full religious experience. Huxley similarly talks about achieving sacramental visions on peyote in 'The doors of perception', so drug induced religious euphoria is hardly anything new. Unless there was a permanent change to the brain chemistry, one would expect most rational atheists to return to atheism once they've finished tripping.

Smoking weed is a huge part of Rastafarianism. They call it "Reasoning" - when a group of people get together, discuss philosophical and religious ideas while smoking ganja. It's a religious ceremony really.

4068ac1elhodqr · 13-06-2019 3:08pm

smacl wrote: »

Unless there was a permanent change to the brain chemistry, one would expect most rational atheists to return to atheism once they've finished tripping.

As above, the study reported 25% were atheists before their experience, versus only 7% percent (after, and when limited/default senses are restored).

Pherekydes · 13-06-2019 4:03pm

Dean Broad Mound wrote: »

As above, the study reported 25% were atheists before their experience, versus only 7% percent (after, and when limited/default senses are restored).

Note that identification with a Major Monotheistic tradition dropped in every group, too.

smacl · 13-06-2019 4:22pm

Dean Broad Mound wrote: »

As above, the study reported 25% were atheists before their experience, versus only 7% percent (after, and when limited/default senses are restored).

The study doesn't quite show that though, insofar as it showed many of those atheists who had had a religious encounter experience on psychedelic drugs remained religious. From my reading it didn't ask whether those people continued to use drugs or not. Not saying that there weren't any 'one of' drug users in there, but I'd suggest that many people who use such drugs do so habitually. Habitual use of many drugs can permanently and negatively effect brain chemistry so there may never have been a return to the previous / default state.

What is interesting in the data is that the shift away from atheism was towards identifying as 'not atheist or major monotheistic tradition'. A large proportion of those who started out monotheistic also ended up in this category after the experience. This data seems to run contrary to repeated use of 'God' (with a capital 'G') in the title and throughout the study and its conclusion, which to many would imply a singular god, most likely the Christian one.

I also found the section titled "Can psychedelic drugs occasion genuine God encounter experiences?" rather bizarre in that a genuine God encounter would necessitate the existence of a genuine God. Again, which God and why not gods? To me this clearly illustrates a religious bias that has me questioning the study as a whole.

Interesting study for all that, thanks for sharing.

smacl · 13-06-2019 4:25pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Isn't it interesting though? NDE has the same effect sometimes on people who were atheist then stopped.

What is interesting to me is that this is something theists are proud of rather than embarrassed by. After all what they are saying is that people move from rational atheism to faith based theism...... when their cognitive faculties have been compromised physically or chemically or emotionally in an extreme fashion.

If I had a claim, and people tended to only believe that claim when they were compromised rationally..... I would not be touting that fact with any level of pride to be honest. Rather I would be deeply concerned that people had to LOSE critical faculties and rationality and coherence for my claim to be more plausible to them.

Death bed conversions please theists it seems. From where I sit, it should be massively embarrassing to them and at best pandiculation for me.

A solid answer for the opening question though

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

Gimme A Pound · 14-06-2019 12:25am

Deleted User wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blaizes · 14-06-2019 12:45am

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

smacl · 14-06-2019 7:13am

Blaizes wrote: »

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

Ideally, yes.

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

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

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

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

Micheal Landon · 14-06-2019 7:15am

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

Bannasidhe · 14-06-2019 9:45am

Micheal Landon wrote: »

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

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

Cabaal · 14-06-2019 10:06am

Micheal Landon wrote: »

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

Yes you are right, Thor exists!

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

Pherekydes · 14-06-2019 12:45pm

Cabaal wrote: »

Yes you are right, Thor exists!

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

Thor's day was yesterday!

Today is Frigg's day. TGIF.

Cabaal · 14-06-2019 3:18pm

Pherekydes wrote: »

Thor's day was yesterday!

Today is Frigg's day. TGIF.

Thor is the one true god!

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

Pherekydes · 14-06-2019 3:53pm

Cabaal wrote: »

Thor is the one true god!

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

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

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

smacl · 14-06-2019 4:06pm

Pherekydes wrote: »

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

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

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

Hotblack Desiato · 14-06-2019 6:14pm

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

robindch · 14-06-2019 6:52pm

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

Bannasidhe · 14-06-2019 7:16pm

robindch wrote: »

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

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

Pherekydes · 15-06-2019 12:23am

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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

That's just going too far. :mad:

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

antiskeptic · 15-06-2019 5:18pm

smacl wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Bannasidhe · 15-06-2019 6:07pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

smacl · 15-06-2019 6:34pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

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

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

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

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

antiskeptic · 15-06-2019 6:36pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

antiskeptic · 15-06-2019 6:56pm

smacl wrote: »

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

In the belief system of some.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's a crass, transparent mode of argumentation

Bannasidhe · 15-06-2019 6:57pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

Teaching children the factual truth is not "foisting".

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

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

antiskeptic · 15-06-2019 7:28pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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

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

It is fact that some children have two mammies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4068ac1elhodqr · 15-06-2019 7:35pm

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

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

Odds for 1/40bnx1bn?

Bannasidhe · 15-06-2019 8:06pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

antiskeptic - you know that is utter hogwash.

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

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

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

antiskeptic · 16-06-2019 7:11am

Bannasidhe wrote: »

antiskeptic - you know that is utter hogwash.

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

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

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

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

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

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

-

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

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

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

-

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

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

smacl · 16-06-2019 9:39am

antiskeptic wrote: »

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

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

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

smacl · 16-06-2019 9:44am

Dean Broad Mound wrote: »

God = Spaceman

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

antiskeptic · 16-06-2019 10:07am

smacl wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is problematic.

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

uck51js9zml2yt · 16-06-2019 10:16am

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

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

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

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

mulbot · 16-06-2019 10:33am

Santino Ancient Disk wrote: »

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

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

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

Hedgelayer · 16-06-2019 11:53am

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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

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

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

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

I'm a GAY man myself and a family consists of a unit of guardians and one or two parents.

You have one dad and one mom, nothing more.

Suggesting to kid's they've two daddies or mummies is like telling them there's a Santa or Easter bunny.

I've come across lesbian and gay couples parenting and most of them do a pretty dam good job at it without undermining the fact that the kid also has a biological father or mother too.

You have a parent and a partnership in those relationships, nothing more or nothing less.

Thankfully for my son's sake his dad myself is a masculine gay man into surfing, fishing, bushcraft and hiking camping etc so he was able to benefit from that and have a normal upbringing...

But I cannot understand this whole two mummies and daddies thing it's not factually correct.

It's undermining the integrity of a family unit.

Bannasidhe · 16-06-2019 12:06pm

Hedgelayer wrote: »

I'm a GAY man myself and a family consists of a unit of guardians and one or two parents.

You have one dad and one mom, nothing more.

Suggesting to kid's they've two daddies or mummies is like telling them there's a Santa or Easter bunny.

I've come across lesbian and gay couples parenting and most of them do a pretty dam good job at it without undermining the fact that the kid also has a biological father or mother too.

You have a parent and a partnership in those relationships, nothing more or nothing less.

Thankfully for my son's sake his dad myself is a masculine gay man into surfing, fishing, bushcraft and hiking camping etc so he was able to benefit from that and have a normal upbringing...

But I cannot understand this whole two mummies and daddies thing it's not factually correct.

It's undermining the integrity of a family unit.

You may be a GAY man who is super butch and masculine and all that (go you!) but you seem to have contradicted yourself there.

No one has said children do not have a biological mother and a father (even when those two people may never have actually met each other or even know each other's names) however that does not make them parents in the day to day caring for a child sense or any kind of a family unit.

If a child is being raised by 2 mammies, 2 daddies, 1 mammy, 1 daddy - then that is the family unit of that child.

antiskeptic · 16-06-2019 12:21pm

If one mammy or daddy, a mammy & daddy, two mammies or daddies.... all constitute 'normal', what about 3 mammies and a daddy or two?

Bannasidhe · 16-06-2019 12:28pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

If one mammy or daddy, a mammy & daddy, two mammies or daddies.... all constitute 'normal', what about 3 mammies and a daddy or two?

Are you familiar with the concept of divorce and people re-marrying?

Parents are the people who raise children.
It's called parenting not birthing for that reason.
And parenting is what I am talking about.

Family units come in all kinds of permutations.

To paraphrase Shakespeare "There are more things in heaven and Earth, antiskeptic, / Than are dreamt of in your philosophy"

khaldrogo · 16-06-2019 12:34pm

ILoveYourVibes wrote:

So why do people?

Insecurities and not being comfortable in themselves I find........

Hedgelayer · 16-06-2019 12:54pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You may be a GAY man who is super butch and masculine and all that (go you!) but you seem to have contradicted yourself there.

No one has said children do not have a biological mother and a father (even when those two people may never have actually met each other or even know each other's names) however that does not make them parents in the day to day caring for a child sense or any kind of a family unit.

If a child is being raised by 2 mammies, 2 daddies, 1 mammy, 1 daddy - then that is the family unit of that child.

Less of the super butch bullsh1t I heard that one before lol super butch , it's not a particularly nice way to describe a guy.

Would you like if I suggested you're a bull dyke ?

Bannasidhe · 16-06-2019 12:58pm

MOD: As this thread is on the topic of "How do you convince people god exists?" not "How do you convince people LGBTetc parents exist?" (and I am just as guilty of this as anyone) any further discussion on the topic of the composition of family units and sexual orientation of parents that is not clearly and obviously tied into proving/disproving the existence of god will be deemed off topic and deleted.

Thanking you for your cooperation in staying on-topic.

Bannasidhe · 16-06-2019 1:01pm

Hedgelayer wrote: »

Less of the super butch bullsh1t I heard that one before lol super butch , it's not a particularly nice way to describe a guy.

Would you like if I suggested you're a bull dyke ?

You wouldn't be the first or the last to use that description. It depends on if you mean it to be offensive or not - even then water + ducks back.

I don't considering calling someone who describes themselves as very masculine as "super butch" to be inaccurate but I apologise if I offended you in any way.

Hedgelayer · 16-06-2019 1:20pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You wouldn't be the first or the last to use that description. It depends on if you mean it to be offensive or not - even then water + ducks back.

I don't considering calling someone who describes themselves as very masculine as "super butch" to be inaccurate but I apologise if I offended you in any way.

It's ok it's like water off a fishes back to me,but I like the terminology super butch, I didn't mean to offend you either....

And you're right bringing in gay and lesbian parenting into this debate ain't what it's all about...

4068ac1elhodqr · 16-06-2019 4:11pm

smacl wrote: »

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

Better question is why not?

And maybe any 'god' can make man somewhat in his own image, rather than vice-versa, not that this is important. Modifying DNA isn't such a difficult science afterall.

In your mind you consider a 'god' type entity as an human (constant) imaginative charachter.

Whereas in fact any visitor to Earth from one of the { 40,000,000,000 (x) 1,000,000,000 } I.e. '4E19' habitable '40,000,000,000,000,000,000.00 planets' in the (observable) Universe, (or other dimension), would certainly be conidered 'god-like' by any age of our civilisation including this current modern one.

How do you convince people god exists?

Comments