How do you convince people god exists?

Nobelium · 10-06-2019 6:56pm

jobeenfitz wrote: »

Maybe god had a mental breakdown? If I was responsible for the human race I might feck off to another universe n pretend it wasn't me. So mental breakdown or just had enough of yee Cu***.

Well as far as I recall genesis does say God regretted making man . . .must have foresaw all the whining on social media, boards.ie, realty tv and the kardashians I reckon.

uck51js9zml2yt · 10-06-2019 7:02pm

Peatys wrote: »

Childhood cancer is all i need to know about your god

Why blame someone you don't believe exists? Sounds a very irrational argument.
You need to blame evolution since you believe in it.

uck51js9zml2yt · 10-06-2019 7:03pm

smacl wrote: »

You'd think an omnipotent deity might've just said 'shush!' in that case rather than resorting to genocide. Not so much a vengeful God as a grumpy all powerful psychopath. And the Christians are afraid of the Devil, makes you wonder whether they've backed the right horse there?

What makes you think we're afraid of a created being?

Nobelium · 10-06-2019 7:13pm

smacl wrote: »

And the Christians are afraid of the Devil, makes you wonder whether they've backed the right horse there?

Didn't have down as one of them Satanist dudes. Makes about as much sense as getting working up about one Leprechaun being better than another.

smacl · 10-06-2019 7:26pm

Santino Ancient Disk wrote: »

What makes you think we're afraid of a created being?

A rather large part of the horror genre serving a Christian audience seems to rely on devils, demons and such like as the scary bad guy. Then you've got more vocal Christian types telling all and sundry that they're going to burn in he'll, which I gather is the devils domain. Are you suggesting that Christians by are indifferent to the devil?

uck51js9zml2yt · 10-06-2019 7:28pm

smacl wrote: »

A rather large part of the horror genre serving a Christian audience seems to rely on devils, demons and such like as the scary bad guy. Then you've got more vocal Christian types telling all and sundry that they're going to burn in he'll, which I gather is the devils domain. Are you suggesting that Christians by are indifferent to the devil?

Never suggested that at all. But then much of what claims to be Christianity isnt even close to the real thing.

10-06-2019 7:30pm

smacl wrote: »

Santino Ancient Disk wrote: »

What makes you think we're afraid of a created being?

A rather large part of the horror genre serving a Christian audience seems to rely on devils, demons and such like as the scary bad guy. Then you've got more vocal Christian types telling all and sundry that they're going to burn in he'll, which I gather is the devils domain. Are you suggesting that Christians by are indifferent to the devil?

Why do you think that is?..they seem to be way more prevalent of late too, when like, no right thinking person should believe in that sort of carry on anymore..

Here we go · 10-06-2019 7:35pm

Not super religious but you don't your not supposed to it's an act of faith I belive in something not sure it's the Bible version or a god who created everything all knowing omnipotent and omnipresent would care if we worship or not or would leave the church as it's envoys you either belive or you don't and you shouldn't need to be convinced if you do do you really belive or you just belive the argument to belive

smacl · 10-06-2019 7:47pm

Nobelium wrote: »

Didn't have down as one of them Satanist dudes. Makes about as much sense as getting working up about one Leprechaun being better than another.

God, Satan, Thor, Kali. One mythology is as believable as the next, which for me is not at all. That said, never had a school teacher tell my kids that Thor or Kali exist and are due respect.

To converse with someone who in all honesty claims belief in a deity, you need to take their belief at face value if not the belief itself. You can't engage without that. It is also worth remembering that very many people hold such beliefs. They also act on those beliefs, often to the detriment of those that do not share the beliefs. Saying it is all a load of bull is fine and dandy but there invariably comes a time where you have to explain why it is bull, notably when they're using their beliefs to excuse the inexcusable. At that point, you need to be able engage.

I honestly don't care what anyone believes until such time they tell me what to believe, at which point I'll give them my honest appraisal of what I think of their belief system.

wiggle16 · 10-06-2019 8:17pm

smacl wrote: »

You'd think an omnipotent deity might've just said 'shush!' in that case rather than resorting to genocide. Not so much a vengeful God as a grumpy all powerful psychopath. And the Christians are afraid of the Devil, makes you wonder whether they've backed the right horse there?

The Devil gave man free will, and receives all of God's fallen children with open arms. Two concepts that the various churches and most religions find distasteful, leaving little doubt as to why people are taught that the Devil is bad and to be feared and despised

I don't believe in anything myself, but I have no problem with the idea of an impersonal prime-mover. The idea that the universe was created by an intelligence which is not concerned by human affairs is no more or less likely than any other explanation and if there were evidence for that, then fine, I could be a deist. It doesn't answer anything though, it just becomes yet another contingency to explain, and so it's not useful as a supposition.

The idea of a theistic God is a terrifying idea, as is the concept that a God who designed a world with so much needless, limitless suffering should be thanked and worshipped and praised, cares about you, and intervenes in your life. In spite of the total absence of evidence, the logical contradictions and the intellectual somersaults needed in order to contrive him, people still believe in a personal God. Not only that, but a foolish one, a God susceptible to prayer.

So I don't think the question should be how do you convince people God exists, but instead how is it that people take so little convincing?

kneemos · 10-06-2019 8:27pm

wiggle16 wrote: »

The Devil gave man free will, and receives all of God's fallen children with open arms. Two concepts that the various churches and most religions find distasteful, leaving little doubt as to why people are taught that the Devil is bad and to be feared and despised

I don't believe in anything myself, but I have no problem with the idea of an impersonal prime-mover. The idea that the universe was created by an intelligence which is not concerned by human affairs is no more or less likely than any other explanation and if there were evidence for that, then fine, I could be a deist. It doesn't answer anything though, it just becomes yet another contingency to explain, and so it's not useful as a supposition.

The idea of a theistic God is a terrifying idea, as is the concept that a God who designed a world with so much needless, limitless suffering should be thanked and worshipped and praised, cares about you, and intervenes in your life. In spite of the total absence of evidence, the logical contradictions and the intellectual somersaults needed in order to contrive him, people still believe in a personal God. Not only that, but a foolish one, a God susceptible to prayer.

So I don't think the question should be how do you convince people God exists, but instead how is it that people take so little convincing?

Quite a bit if not most of the suffering is caused or inflicted by ourselves.
If you want freewill and experience the full range of emotions you're going to have suffering.

igCorcaigh · 10-06-2019 8:32pm

kneemos wrote: »

Quite a bit if not most of the suffering is caused or inflicted by ourselves.
If you want freewill and experience the full range of emotions you're going to have suffering.

It's the price to pay for consciousness to exist, and it's debatable whether it's worth the price.

wiggle16 · 10-06-2019 8:45pm

kneemos wrote: »

Quite a bit if not most of the suffering is caused or inflicted by ourselves.

Quite a bit, yep. So what about the suffering caused by natural disasters, disease, famines, accidents, the suffering endured by anyone who loses a child, the suffering we experience as people we love get old and sick and die, and the suffering wrought by aging and dying itself?

What do we do with the stuff God is responsible for?

If you want freewill and experience the full range of emotions you're going to have suffering.

I didn't conflate free will with suffering. I have my free will and I suffer like everyone else. But I don't suffer because I have free will. Not seeing the relationship between the two things, even in terms of theodicy.

igCorcaigh · 10-06-2019 9:09pm

wiggle16 wrote: »

I didn't conflate free will with suffering. I have my free will and I suffer like everyone else. But I don't suffer because I have free will. Not seeing the relationship between the two things, even in terms of theodicy.

I don't see free will falling into that line of argument either, but it does come into discussion though.

Weren't the Christians very divided about this? Calvin etc.

robindch · 10-06-2019 9:19pm

Here we go wrote: »

Not super religious but you don't your not supposed to it's an act of faith [...]

Yes, religious people do call it an "act of faith" or a "leap of faith", as though one were all the more noble for believing something without evidence.

If the same "act of faith" logic applied elsewhere, would it similarly noble to believe, also without evidence, that your neighbour killed your dog or your spouse were sleeping with your sibling?

smacl · 10-06-2019 9:35pm

Santino Ancient Disk wrote: »

Never suggested that at all. But then much of what claims to be Christianity isnt even close to the real thing.

One Christian or group of Christians suggesting that other Christians with a different take on Christianity aren't really Christians seems to be a recurring them here, in the Christianity forum and further afield. If one were to believe all such claims there would be no 'real' Christians.

wiggle16 · 10-06-2019 9:45pm

igCorcaigh wrote: »

I don't see free will falling into that line of argument either, but it does come into discussion though.

Weren't the Christians very divided about this? Calvin etc.

Still are. You kind of have to be preoccupied with this, the problem of evil, if you want to think about God in any serious way.

What's fascinating is how many hairs can be split over the one idea or issue. On the one hand, you have the various solutions to the problem of evil, which try to show how the fact that there is evil in the world is still consistent with the existence of God.
On the other hand, you have theodicy, which tries to show how the fact that there is evil in the world makes the existence of a GOD plausible or even more likely.

Commonly Calvin is misconstrued as not believing that people have free will - he did, but he differenciated two kinds of free will. One which was base, which was the free will all people are born with, and Calvin believed that under this form of free will, people will always in variably choose to sin.
The other was a kind of enlightened free will where people would have the freedom "to live as they ought".
Neither of these actually sounds like free will at all and so I wonder if Calvin had failed to define his terms.

Calvin did believe in predestination, which is also misunderstood as denying free will. It doesn't, but the fact that it was necessary for intolerant pedants like Calvin to invent convoluted pseudo-solutions to problems with christian doctrine, such as predestination, also makes one wonder why people want to be convinced of the existence of a theistic God in the first place.

Nobelium · 10-06-2019 9:51pm

smacl wrote: »

God, Satan, Thor, Kali. One mythology is as believable as the next, which for me is not at all. That said, never had a school teacher tell my kids that Thor or Kali exist and are due respect.

To converse with someone who in all honesty claims belief in a deity, you need to take their belief at face value if not the belief itself. You can't engage without that. It is also worth remembering that very many people hold such beliefs. They also act on those beliefs, often to the detriment of those that do not share the beliefs. Saying it is all a load of bull is fine and dandy but there invariably comes a time where you have to explain why it is bull, notably when they're using their beliefs to excuse the inexcusable. At that point, you need to be able engage.

I honestly don't care what anyone believes until such time they tell me what to believe, at which point I'll give them my honest appraisal of what I think of their belief system.

Nah man, I ain't going down the route wasting my life and time discussing and becoming obsessed with Leprechauns and those who believe in them. You just become the other side of the same coin. I'm more interested in what i'm doing rather that what others are doing, and if you think it's only Leprechauns, that's just the medium, they'll find some other ism from communism to socialism to capitalism to adopt and oppress others with using whatever current political correctness of the time and place is most advantageous. Twas always so, and will forever be.

igCorcaigh · 10-06-2019 9:53pm

wiggle16 wrote: »

Still are. You kind of have to be preoccupied with this, the problem of evil, if you want to think about God in any serious way.

What's fascinating is how many hairs can be split over the one idea or issue. On the one hand, you have the various solutions to the problem of evil, which try to show how the fact that there is evil in the world is still consistent with the existence of God.
On the other hand, you have theodicy, which tries to show how the fact that there is evil in the world makes the existence of a GOD plausible or even more likely.

Commonly Calvin is misconstrued as not believing that people have free will - he did, but he differenciated two kinds of free will. One which was base, which was the free will all people are born with, and Calvin believed that under this form of free will, people will always in variably choose to sin.
The other was a kind of enlightened free will where people would have the freedom "to live as they ought".
Neither of these actually sounds like free will at all and so I wonder if Calvin had failed to define his terms.

Calvin did believe in predestination, which is also misunderstood as denying free will. It doesn't, but the fact that it was necessary for intolerant pedants like Calvin to invent convoluted pseudo-solutions to problems with christian doctrine, such as predestination, also makes one wonder why people want to be convinced of the existence of a theistic God in the first place.

Thank you.
And exactly your point.

Some of the convolutions he struggled with are very much with us today in regard of the recent debates about free will, all theology aside.

At the same time, if some of the modern arguments do diminish free will to such ab extent, then I think it does challenge the very idea of a Christian god, I think.

But I'm proposing that the modern crisis of free well actually supports the pantheism I mentioned earlier.

igCorcaigh · 10-06-2019 10:13pm

Nobelium wrote: »

Nah man, I ain't going down the route wasting my life and time discussing and becoming obsessed with Leprechauns and those who believe in them. You just become the other side of the same coin. I'm more interested in what i'm doing rather that what others are doing, and if you think it's only Leprechauns, that's just the medium, they'll find some other ism from communism to socialism to capitalism to adopt and oppress others with using whatever current political correctness of the time and place is most advantageous. Twas always so, and will forever be.

Yeah, I actually don't believe in belief.
It's the only belief I have.

I can consider things, value things, feel very passionate about things, but I don't believe in anything. I have a problem with the word itself.

It's a language problem perhaps.
But it's just not a word I use in my vocabulary.

kneemos · 10-06-2019 11:35pm

wiggle16 wrote: »

Quite a bit, yep. So what about the suffering caused by natural disasters, disease, famines, accidents, the suffering endured by anyone who loses a child, the suffering we experience as people we love get old and sick and die, and the suffering wrought by aging and dying itself?

What do we do with the stuff God is responsible for?

I didn't conflate free will with suffering. I have my free will and I suffer like everyone else. But I don't suffer because I have free will. Not seeing the relationship between the two things, even in terms of theodicy.

People suffer because freewill exists.

wiggle16 · 10-06-2019 11:37pm

kneemos wrote: »

People suffer because freewill exists.

Can you elaborate as to how and why?

kneemos · 10-06-2019 11:55pm

wiggle16 wrote: »

Can you elaborate as to how and why?

Someone makes a decision that affects you negatively.
Somebody starts a war,stabs you in a robbery or deliberately runs over your dog etc.

Nobelium · 11-06-2019 12:14am

igCorcaigh wrote: »

Yeah, I actually don't believe in belief.
It's the only belief I have.

I can consider things, value things, feel very passionate about things, but I don't believe in anything. I have a problem with the word itself.

It's a language problem perhaps.
But it's just not a word I use in my vocabulary.

I know what you mean, but there is room for belief for some things, depending on what it is, it's not always a dirty word. If no evidence either way is available, e.g. no evidence to date has been found of actual alien life, yet some people, including NASA believe alien life is probable and worth searching for.

donspeekinglesh · 11-06-2019 12:30am

kneemos wrote: »

People suffer because freewill exists.

And how did freewill cause this person to suffer?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48585038

igCorcaigh · 11-06-2019 1:54am

Nobelium wrote: »

I know what you mean, but there is room for belief for some things, depending on what it is, it's not always a dirty word. If no evidence either way is available, e.g. no evidence to date has been found of actual alien life, yet some people, including NASA believe alien life is probable and worth searching for.

In that sense of the word ^believe^.
Sure.
But that means, strive.

igCorcaigh · 11-06-2019 3:00am

"all life cares about itself ^

https://youtu.be/DzF18bjHvW0

pauldla · 11-06-2019 3:58am

kneemos wrote: »

People suffer because freewill exists.

Quite an assertion. In order to support this, one would need to explain what is meant by free will, demonstrate that it exists, and then show the connection between freewill and suffering (and to the exclusion of other sources of suffering, at that).

You have your work cut out for you there, kneemos. Good luck!

smacl · 11-06-2019 7:23am

pauldla wrote: »

Quite an assertion. In order to support this, one would need to explain what is meant by free will, demonstrate that it exists, and then show the connection between freewill and suffering (and to the exclusion of other sources of suffering, at that).

Maybe it involves willing that a mosquito to bite you, mosquitoes being responsible for 750,000 deaths per year where humans only manage 437,000. Source.

Then again it could simply be willing yourself to be born into a poor country, from the WHO

More than half of all deaths in low-income countries in 2016 were caused by the so-called “Group I” conditions, which include communicable diseases, maternal causes, conditions arising during pregnancy and childbirth, and nutritional deficiencies. By contrast, less than 7% of deaths in high-income countries were due to such causes. Lower respiratory infections were among the leading causes of death across all income groups.

So while we have ~300,000 obesity related deaths in the USA each year, which are arguably related to free will, malnutrition is an underlying cause of death of 2.6 million children each year. Add another half million or more due to malaria, and free will seems to be a minor factor in most preventable deaths.

Buy hey, there's always the 'mysterious ways' clause, and it looks like the geneticists are on the road to knocking out mosquitoes, inshallah.

nozzferrahhtoo · 11-06-2019 8:03am

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah, but, so much of the whole atheist world view is based on a moral philosophy that is Christian really.. like, really, what is to say that killing someone is wrong, really?..many other cultures didn't view it as such..

I think you are mistaking two groups coming to similar conclusions as one groups thinking being based on the others.

This single error alas makes you make others.

Firstly, no, even if theists and atheists were coming to the conclusion that "killing someone is wrong" that does not mean atheist thought is "based on a moral philosophy that is Christian really" or vice versa. Two groups are perfectly capable of coming to the same conclusion, on entirely different rationale.

Secondly however no, I do not think Christian thought really has come to the conclusion that "killing someone is wrong" really. If you read over the Bible much of it, especially the Old Testament, is a doctrine on when and how to kill people. It is less about how killing someone is wrong, so much as informing people when killing someone is ok. Just like the Bible does not admonish us not to keep slaves, so much as it tells us how to keep slaves and how to treat them when we have them.

But as another user told you a lot of our "common sense ethics" existed long before Christianity. Take the Golden Rule that is espoused often in the fables of The Nazerene. The Golden Rule.... aside from being a pretty awful premise..... predates Christ by quite a long period of time.

Deleted User wrote: »

So much of most people's belief in science is based on blind faith too though..

You will have to take that up with those people then. I have yet to meet anyone fitting this description, let alone "most people" so you will have to provide some examples so I can work out who or what you are talking about.

However there is very clear differences between Science and Religion which I think you contrive to gloss over here.

Most notably is that the methodology of Science is based on proving our ideas wrong. You get points in science for proving other people wrong. Hell you get points in science for proving YOURSELF wrong in science. Rather than "Blind Faith" as you describe it, Science is based on assuming you are wrong all the time and doing your best to prove you are.

Contrast that to Religion. The Business of Priests for example does not tend to be to stand up in front of the congregation every week to tell them how they themselves, or other priests, are wrong. Quite the opposite, they have prayers based on asking god to help them with their unbelief.

Deleted User wrote: »

But like, even with the more out there chaotic mathematics for instance.. there's a beauty to it that would suggest a divine creator behind it..

That is just YOUR emotional and subjective reaction to mathematics. That is not evidence for a god. It does not "suggest" any such thing. It is just a reaction YOU have to it.

Deleted User wrote: »

Shur Moses saw him in the burning bush that time..

And Frodo Baggins met a resurrected Gandalf.

Thankfully however the events in works of fiction do not require us to believe nonsense about actual reality.

nozzferrahhtoo · 11-06-2019 8:03am

kneemos wrote: »

With all due respect the height of critical thinking I've ever heard from an atheist is I can't see him therefore he doesn't exist.

No idea what Atheists you have been talking to because once again this doesn't not describe a single one I know. Especially as we have evidence for many things we do not "see" like bacteria and atoms. So not being able to "see" something is rarely a preclusion for an atheist to believe something.

No the problem with the claims there is a god is not that we do not "see" god, but that you have yet to provide a single shred of arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to suggest there is one. Simple as.

Get around to FOR ONCE in your life making such offerings and we might start believing. Simple make up reasons vicariously on our behalf for why we do not believe you however..... and I doubt you will convince anyone but yourself of that nonsense.

kneemos wrote: »

No harm to have an open mind,unless you believe everything we know is all there is to know. To be rather aggressively cock sure that God doesn't exist just has a hint of a teenage rebellious tantrum.

But the "cock sure" is just positions you are inventing for them rather than them expressing for themselves.

I for example am entirely open to the idea a god might exist. I see nothing precluding the possibility at least.

What I am sure of however is that no one, least of all yourself, has yet gotten around to providing a shred of argument, evidence, data or reasoning that any god actually DOES exist.

That does not mean there is not one. That does not mean I am "sure" there is not one. It just means there is absolutely no reason at this time for me to even suspect there might be one.

Maybe you might get on that, and provide some evidence or..... well anything really.

kneemos wrote: »

That a universe can pop into existence out of nothing is as bizzare as it gets.

Why do you assume it did though? We have no evidence for this. The idea there was "Nothing" or that there ever had to have been "nothing" is just your assumption. There might for example "always" have been "something". We simply do not know.

The issue is that the evidence from people like yourself that the eternal something was a non-human intentional and intelligent agent is currently absolutely none.

kneemos wrote: »

According to the science boffins there are ten or eleven dimensions.

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.

kneemos wrote: »

People suffer because freewill exists.

Do you have any evidence Free Will actually does exist though? It is quite the contentious claim these days. It is certainly by no means a given.

I can certainly come up with arguments and reasons why we should operate AS IF free will exists, especially in our halls of justice. But I am at this time entirely agnostic on the subject of whether it actually does or not.

nozzferrahhtoo · 11-06-2019 8:03am

Nikki Sixx wrote: »

You could show them near death experience videos on YouTube. You will even find hardened criminals, who following their n.d.e. became preachers.

I am never sure why NDE is used as evidence for an after life. I am even less sure why it is used as evidence for a god as even if you proved there was an after life..... it would not be evidence for a god. One could exist without the other.

However the clue is in the name NDE. NEAR death experience. That is to say..... the patient did not actually die.

An NDE is therefore no more an experience of the after life than walking up to a plane but not boarding it is an experience of a Sun Holiday away in Spain. The very name NDE tells you why it is NOT evidence for an after life in the same way the term UFO tells you why you do NOT have evidence of aliens.

Nikki Sixx wrote: »

If life is so meaningless/ pointless, you could always throw yourself off a bridge.

I suspect your error here is in not understanding the difference between objective meaning and other kinds of meaning. That life does not appear to have any OBJECTIVE meaning given by an external source.... that does not mean it is devoid of actual meaning to the people living it.

If YOU require a fairy tale in order to derive meaning from life then that would be your flaw, not a flaw of the atheist. And you certainly have my sympathy if life is so devoid of meaning for you that you need to simply invent imaginary ones.

My life, as an atheist however, is replete with sources of meaning for me. None of which require me to subscribe to ideas devoid of any and all evidence.

Nikki Sixx wrote: »

I find it too hard to believe that say the seasons, the way animals hibernate each year and the dependence of flowers on honey bees to complete their life cycle, is all an accident. But I’m sure I’ll be regarded as simple for saying that.

Wasn't it Bill OReilly who said his evidence for god was "Tides go in, tides go out!".

I do not think you are "simple" for saying that, so much as your thinking is simply incomplete on the issue.

The evolution which we suspect is the main and even entire explanation for hibernation and the other things you list is not an "accident" so much as "accident" (the better term is chance, or randomness) is merely one attribute/element of the entire process.

Even then what we mean by "randomness" is not clear cut. But it suffices for this point. Evolution is not random. It is a process with randomness as one element in the process.

nozzferrahhtoo · 11-06-2019 8:03am

splinter65 wrote: »

Atheism. The superstition that everything came from nothing.

Speak for yourself I guess. While I do not use the word "atheist" myself I certainly qualify one. And the assumption anything came from nothing is not one I make. Nor is it one I am required to make.

Nobelium wrote: »

I get all this, but instead Fry's reaction wasn't to complain about some of the illogical claims of some believers/religions, but instead a full on emotional and angry rant at an entity he claims he doesn't believe even exists. Not very convincing of non belief. I'd be more like "meh . . so what else it true . . .and not true"

Depends how you look at it. Fry is an author and a long term reader of literature.

Even in the Leaving Certificate I wrote a "rant" about how I do not believe the character of Silas Marner can be forgiven.... in response to a question about how or why we should forgive him. In fact I got quite emotional writing it, and a lot of that came across in what I wrote. I got an A.

Did I have to believe Marner existed in order to rant about him? No. I did not.

Fry was just doing what he always does. Evaluating the character in a work of fiction. And taken under that interpretation his rant is perfectly coherent and is not required to be "convincing of non belief" as you put it.

nozzferrahhtoo · 11-06-2019 8:04am

Pauliedragon wrote: »

It's called faith and it keeps a lot of people happy in their lives so let them be.

As a man better than I once said..... if it was JUST making them happy then that would be fine. Alas so many of them can not seem to be happy until we believe it too.

Pauliedragon wrote: »

I know plenty of people who will say there's no proof of a god so it doesn't exist but ask them if there's extra terestrial life out there they'll say of course there is we can't be the only planet out of billiions that's inhabited. Why need proof of one and not the other?

We need evidence of BOTH. What I think the people you are talking to are likely saying is that one is still more likely than the other.

Put it this way.... we have ZERO evidence for a god. We also have no examples of a god. So the god claims are at square one.

But when talking about intelligent life in the universe we DO have some evidence. US. WE are evidence that intelligent life exists in the universe. So the idea there might be OTHER life is at least off square one on the credibility stakes.

That is not evidence that there IS other intelligent life in the universe! But it is certainly a credibility boost to one claim over the other.

sbsquarepants · 11-06-2019 8:23am

smacl wrote: »

Ah yeah, but water into wine though. Who wouldn't want a mate like that at a party?

Outdated - these days it would have to be flour into cocaine to impress anyone:D

smacl · 11-06-2019 8:34am

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Outdated - these days it would have to be flour into cocaine to impress anyone:D

Time for the Flying Spaghetti Monster to send young Pot Noodle Girl among and do the business so. May she boil in chicken broth for our sins and maybe leave a few baggies too

sbsquarepants · 11-06-2019 8:41am

kneemos wrote: »

That a universe can pop into existence out of nothing is as bizzare as it gets.

This one always baffles me.

One of the main "arguments" for the existence of a god is "something this complex surely requires a creator"

So I assume this creator being quite complex and all must also have been created? "No, don't be stupid - he was just always there"

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Bannasidhe · 11-06-2019 8:47am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

As a man better than I once said..... if it was JUST making them happy then that would be fine. Alas so many of them can not seem to be happy until we believe it too.

For me this is the crux of my response to the thread title - why do you need to convince people god exists?
What difference does it make to a person's belief in a god if other people don't believe?

I remember from reading Luther that the religious consensus among many theologians for centuries was that in order for Jesus to return (since he had completely failed to do so...) the whole world must be baptised. I found this interesting as 'belief' didn't come into it -the act of baptism, even when forced, was enough for people to be considered 'Christian'. And indeed forced baptism played a large role in the spread of Christianity (e.g among the Saxons and Angles). Luther agreed that everyone needed to be Christian to prompt the second coming but he argued that having Faith was the key. He believed that the reason the whole world wasn't Christian was beause Rome had gotten the theology completely wrong - whereas he, Luther, was on the right path. The failure of Jews to instantly convert to his 'true' interpretation led to Luther incorporating serious antisemitic view points in his theology - which was to have serious repercussions down the line in Germanic societies as we know.

nozzferrahhtoo · 11-06-2019 8:53am

Bannasidhe wrote: »

For me this is the crux of my response to the thread title - why do you need to convince people god exists?

Hard to get into the mind of the theist on that one.

I think the concepts of things like Hell were an insidiously clever invention however.

If you genuinely believe false belief or non-belief is a threat to the ETERNAL well being of yourself and your loved ones..... then suddenly all the atheists and theists of different religions around you become an active threat to you and yours.

It is amazing how elegant and insidious that is. No longer must a religion actively promote hatred of "the other". You simply build a narrative in which "the other" is an active threat.... and the flock do the rest of the work on their own.

All that said though I think we are evolved as story telling meme machines. We "need" to share our ideas and conclusions and positions with others. In the same way theists need to spread their faith..... some people really need other people to watch the same shows they do on netflix. We feel strongly compelled to get people watching the same shows as us.

robindch · 11-06-2019 9:52am

Bannasidhe wrote: »

For me this is the crux of my response to the thread title - why do you need to convince people god exists? What difference does it make to a person's belief in a god if other people don't believe?

The Religion as Selfish Meme theory of religion explains why propagation is such a necessary part of many religions. Basically, the religions which are most widespread are widespread because they've evolved the most successful means of assuring their own propagation. The Shakers, for example, are celibate, so vertical propagation from parent to child is hard or impossible, and conversion to shakerism seems to rely entirely on horizontal propagation from person to person by active conversion. On the other hand, the catholic religion while allowing for the same horizontal propagation, also encourages vertical propagation by a) prohibiting sex before marriage; b) during the marriage ceremony, requiring parents to agree to bring up their kids as catholics; c) once married, prohibiting abortion and use of contraception and d) once children arrive, parents are required to turn them into little catholics adhering to the same rules; e) appointing godparents to ensure that (d) takes place;

It's easy enough to see which religion is going to outbreed the other.

So to answer your question - propagating the religion is believed to be vital for the simple, vacuous, reason that the religion tells them to believe that it is. In christianity, it's called The Great Commission.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The failure of Jews to instantly convert to his 'true' interpretation led to Luther incorporating serious antisemitic view points in his theology - which was to have serious repercussions down the line in Germanic societies as we know.

On the Jews and Their Lies:

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

smacl · 11-06-2019 11:14am

robindch wrote: »

The Religion as Selfish Meme theory of religion explains why propagation is such a necessary part of many religions.

Apart from not being a Dawkins fan, the issue I'd see with religion as a meme is that if it were true, religion would essentially spread through the masses of its own accord whereas its spread seems largely dependent on the external control mechanism of an active church hierarchy. I tend to think of religions such as Christianity more like huge factional power structures used by the few to control the many. If you look at religion in this country for example, it has fallen into decline as the church has lost its influence. I full accept that heaven and hell are carrot and stick mechanisms but don't think they work unless there's someone trying to drive the donkey forward.

I wonder if Dawkins was a William Burroughs fan? Burroughs was talking about language as a virus as early as 1962 and we now see the metaphor of viruses commonly applied to marketing and various other online fads.

Hotblack Desiato · 11-06-2019 12:40pm

Nobelium wrote: »

I get their point than circumstances might not alter someone belief / non belief, but the pic isn't very convincing. They are in a barracks, in barracks uniform, with a whiteboard, under a shady palm tree.

Bringing large whiteboards into an area of battle and then posing for photos is generally discouraged by the chain of command.

Nobelium wrote: »

Yeah but ranting at a so called God that is indifferent at best to the interests of humanity isn't actual atheism. I can't get emotionally worked up into having a hypothetical rant with something I genuinely believe doesn't even exist, and even if it turned out to . .I would actually know nothing about what is true and not about it, or what kind of entity it even was.

He's an actor, making convincing emotional reactions to hypothetical/fictional scenarios is his job.

kneemos wrote: »

If you want freewill and experience the full range of emotions you're going to have suffering.

Earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes or indeed lightning bolts have nothing to do with free will (although the looniest evangelicals tend to blame these occurrences on teh gheys)

You say free will causes suffering, yet we restrict free will as a means of imposing suffering (imprisonment, house arrest, shunning, silencing, etc) - The RCC is quite fond of doing the latter to its own clergy.

Cabaal · 11-06-2019 12:43pm

kneemos wrote: »

People suffer because freewill exists.

I wasn't aware children getting cancer and women having miscarriages was because of other people's decisions that had no impact on the people who actually suffered.

If however you believe that your decision to cross the road OR not cross the road (freewill after all) somehow causes a child in the UK to have cancer then you sir are one messed up person.

Cabaal · 11-06-2019 12:46pm

sbsquarepants wrote: »

This one always baffles me.

One of the main "arguments" for the existence of a god is "something this complex surely requires a creator"

So I assume this creator being quite complex and all must also have been created? "No, don't be stupid - he was just always there"

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

"Turtles all the way down" pops into the head

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

robindch · 11-06-2019 1:36pm

smacl wrote: »

Apart from not being a Dawkins fan, the issue I'd see with religion as a meme is that if it were true, religion would essentially spread through the masses of its own accord whereas its spread seems largely dependent on the external control mechanism of an active church hierarchy.

A proselytizing church hierarchy just provides additional vectors by which a religious meme can control and direct its own reproduction - catholicism, which is a fairly top-down religion, seems to wither where it doesn't have the state doing something to help enforce rituals promoting vertical transmission (ie, control of primary schools). Protestantism, on the other hand, with all its many variations is not a top-down religion and these variations tend to develop their own means of propagation which can work without state support.

The memetic "software" running the priesthood is essentially the same as what the priesthood installs into the minds of their flocks - one of the principal rules of which is to propagate the religion by whatever means necessary - tight control of access to sex for christianity, and things like the "church-planting" of fundamentalist protestant missionaries to make up for the lack of access to state control.

smacl · 11-06-2019 3:42pm

robindch wrote: »

A proselytizing church hierarchy just provides additional vectors by which a religious meme can control and direct its own reproduction

I'm not convinced these are additional vectors rather than the main sustaining force though. More simply I wonder that without a hierarchy in place whether Christianity in this country would collapse in a generation. If this was the case, Christianity is not self sustaining or something that can be reasonably thought of in terms of a self replicating social imperative or software. It possibly once was in simpler times, when the messages of Christianity were contextually appropriate to the intended audience and that audience had neither the means, nor the education, nor the desire to question them. I think one key ingredient that religion needs to succeed is an element of desperation. Without this it has to be actively foisted on people at a young age to take root.

The problem with applying abstract ideas such as Dawkins' mimetics to religion is when the reality doesn't quite fit the tidy abstract construct we try to shoehorn it into place rather than re-evaluating our abstract. While I'll admit my bias, not being Dicky Ds biggest fan, I find mimetics to smack of pseudoscience in this regard.

Nobelium · 11-06-2019 10:34pm

igCorcaigh wrote: »

In that sense of the word ^believe^.
Sure.
But that means, strive.

no not in that sense, in the sense you have to believe alien life has a probability of existing out there somewhere, before to commit to spending billions searching for it.

Hotblack Desiato · 12-06-2019 10:15am

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

smacl · 12-06-2019 10:37am

Nobelium wrote: »

no not in that sense, in the sense you have to believe alien life has a probability of existing out there somewhere, before to commit to spending billions searching for it.

Probability of existing and possibility of ever being reachable without FTL travel being two separate things there. Probability of ever achieving FTL is unknown. Even at sub-light speeds with an AI sitting dormant for millennia the probability of ever making meaningful contact is infinitesimal as a function of the probability of alien intelligence actually existing. Remember this all has to be done before the sun goes out.

As a belief, extra-terrestrial contact does suffer from the same problems as religious belief to some extent insofar as we have to distinguish what we would like to be true from what is probably true. Is there any evidence to suggest that we can or will make extra-terrestrial contact in the life time of our species? Always worth spending those few billions to take a punt at it, but I reckon it is rather a long shot.

nozzferrahhtoo · 12-06-2019 11:02am

Nobelium wrote: »

no not in that sense, in the sense you have to believe alien life has a probability of existing out there somewhere, before to commit to spending billions searching for it.

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.

How do you convince people god exists?

Comments