Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Ricky Spanish on January 23, 2016, 09:24:58 PM
-
You have been doing it all wrong according to WikiHow:
http://www.wikihow.com/Persuade-an-Atheist-to-Become-Christian
-
You have been doing it all wrong according to WikiHow:
http://www.wikihow.com/Persuade-an-Atheist-to-Become-Christian
The best way to 'persuade an atheist to become a Christian' is probably to ignore them ;)
-
The best way to 'persuade an atheist to become a Christian' is probably to ignore them ;)
How does that work?
-
Why try to persuade them? It won't work.
-
How does that work?
From my understanding of human development, whilst information needs to be expressed and explained, values and understandings are better illustrated. Hence the famous saying, often attributed to St Francis - "Preach the gospel, and if necessary, use words".
Clearly, on a virtual medium where words are the sole means of expressing things, 'not using words' is problematic.
-
You have been doing it all wrong according to WikiHow:
http://www.wikihow.com/Persuade-an-Atheist-to-Become-Christian
This has, I seem to remember, been posted before.
It was then, and is now, a carefully devised exercise in duplicity and says lot about how Christianity works in America to gain converts at any price.
-
I doubt many people of faith dropped God after reading those stupid atheist slogans on the sides of buses, considering atheism is continuing to die off.
"How An Atheist Found God"
http://www.everystudent.com/wires/atheist.html
-
Dear me.
If the travesty of "reasoning" on display in that farrago of twaddle is what leads some people to God, you'd think some sort of sense of embarrassment would lead them to keep quiet about it at least.
-
I doubt many people of faith dropped God after reading those stupid atheist slogans on the sides of buses, considering atheism is continuing to die off.
"How An Atheist Found God"
http://www.everystudent.com/wires/atheist.html
Anybody who can be convinced to look for "God" needs it. The majority of atheists don't feel that need. Those few of us who have been in both places are probably in a stronger position than those who haven't.
-
There are some very decent Christians, but I suspect their faith has absolutely nothing to do with them being good people. There are some very nasty people claiming to be Christians, one or two of whom reside on this forum! They use the Bible as an excuse for their ghastly behaviour; the deity featured there is not a role model for good behaviour. >:(
-
There are some very decent Christians, but I suspect their faith has absolutely nothing to do with them being good people.
What do you mean by a 'good person', Floo? It is such a bland phrase as to make it just about meaningless. Remember that the Pharisees regarded themselves as 'good people' and Jesus was probably more critical of them than of anyone else.
There are some very nasty people claiming to be Christians, one or two of whom reside on this forum! They use the Bible as an excuse for their ghastly behaviour; the deity featured there is not a role model for good behaviour. >:(
Whilst I would agree with the first part of this, Floo - there are pretty nasty people the world over, regardless of their religious standpoint. However, I would also point out that the reason we tend to regard them as nasty is precisely because they haven't used the Biblical deity as a role model!
-
You have been doing it all wrong according to WikiHow:
http://www.wikihow.com/Persuade-an-Atheist-to-Become-Christian
According to Wiki, since when have you followed or listened to the advice of Wiki?
True believers do not Persuade, coax or cajole.
It is misleading to think that befriending, helping or even the way we treat and talk to others will lead them to God.
Romans 16:18King James Version (KJV)
18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.
The truth is that the Truth about Jesus Christ stands on it's own.
Truth faith comes by hearing the word and believing.
King James Bible
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
People are often lead to the LORD, by the Christian living their lives with God in Christ.
If your relationship is a true relationship with God. Then you can only pray others will come to find God, too.
A person may ask you about your faith and you can share it. But no one can persuade, Coax or cajole someone to believe
in Jesus Christ and God.
It has to be their own way through Christ.
-
I doubt many people of faith dropped God after reading those stupid atheist slogans on the sides of buses, considering atheism is continuing to die off.
"How An Atheist Found God"
http://www.everystudent.com/wires/atheist.html
They weren't aimed at converting people to atheism - they were about getting people who don't believe in god to recognise that there are loads of people just like them and that it's absolutely fine. And also to get religious people to recognise that a significant minority in the UK (far more than all active religious participants combined) don't believe in god.
The reason being that our media and major institutions totally ignore the fact that most people in the UK aren't religious and that about 20% (maybe more are atheist). All you hear is pandering to different faith groups as if the whole population is part of one faith group or another.
The non religious really are the silent majority.
-
What do you mean by a 'good person', Floo? It is such a bland phrase as to make it just about meaningless. Remember that the Pharisees regarded themselves as 'good people' and Jesus was probably more critical of them than of anyone else.
Whilst I would agree with the first part of this, Floo - there are pretty nasty people the world over, regardless of their religious standpoint. However, I would also point out that the reason we tend to regard them as nasty is precisely because they haven't used the Biblical deity as a role model!
By good I mean someone who does their best to help others as well as themselves as they go through life. That is far more important than whether they have a faith or not, imo.
-
True believers do not Persuade, coax or cajole.
Then why has there been a group out in Hounslow High Street yelling their message of redemption and entrance to heaven by confession and forgiveness of sin to anyone who is stupid enough to walk anywhere near them?
-
Oh - I've heard about this ~Jesus~ bloke. Where is he now, and how do I make an appointment to have a chat with him?
-
Oh - I've heard about this ~Jesus~ bloke. Where is he now, and how do I make an appointment to have a chat with him?
You'll be lucky the guy is permanently off line! ::)
-
You'll be lucky the guy is permanently off line! ::)
He isn't but there are doubts as to how far you've been online Floo :) :) :)
-
He isn't but there are doubts as to how far you've been online Floo :) :) :)
And you can prove Jesus actually resurrected can you?
-
And you can prove Jesus actually resurrected can you?
Only have the evidence, Floo of the Gospels and the Epistles, Floo and the testimony of the risen Christ in Christians and my own experience......Take it or leave it.
-
Only have the evidence, Floo of the Gospels and the Epistles, Floo and the testimony of the risen Christ in Christians and my own experience......Take it or leave it.
That's a no, then.
-
Only have the evidence, Floo of the Gospels and the Epistles, Floo and the testimony of the risen Christ in Christians and my own experience......Take it or leave it.
If you believe those tales are evidence you are truly gullible! ::)
-
That's a no, then.
......Then there is the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, the moral argument, the psychological avoidance of God argument, argument from felt need......and all the other arguments that antitheists claim have failed logically but that actually means they have only been established as not without counter argument.
-
......Then there is the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, the moral argument, the psychological avoidance of God argument, argument from felt need......and all the other arguments that antitheists claim have failed logically but that actually means they have only been established as not without counter argument.
Gullible and then some! ::)
-
......Then there is the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, the moral argument
... all of which were put out for the bin men long, long ago, though it's no surprise to me that you haven't heard yet.
the psychological avoidance of God argument
... which doesn't even exist except in what you like to think of as your mind ...
argument from felt need
That's an argument, is it? ;D
......and all the other arguments that antitheists claim have failed logically but that actually means they have only been established as not without counter argument.
Also known as "bald assertions unsubstantiated by the merest scrap of proof."
-
That's an argument, is it? ;D
Well, if L|en uses it, it must be an argument ;)
Anybody who can be convinced to look for "God" needs it. The majority of atheists don't feel that need. Those few of us who have been in both places are probably in a stronger position than those who haven't.
I notice that you didn't challenge his view as expressed in this post.
-
Well, if L|en uses it, it must be an argument ;)
I've never known Len to use "That there's a felt need [as opposed to an unfelt need?] is an argument in support of the existence of the thing needed" as Vlad did in #22. That's the sort of witless flummery that C. S. Lewis used to pass off as pop theology, and Len is far too acute for that.
-
By good I mean someone who does their best to help others as well as themselves as they go through life. That is far more important than whether they have a faith or not, imo.
OK, that's 'good'; many of us would fit into that category, but are still not perfect in our own lives. We get angry, we lie, we tread on people's toes (metaphorically and otherwise) to get our own way, we're selfish, we cheat, we regard victimless crime as less serious than those with victims, ... . Those are all fairly common traits of humanity; we may not all exhibit every one, but doesn't that nullify just about every effort we make to help others?
I think, more important than whether or not 'we do our best to help others as well as ourselves' is whether - if everyone really knew what we were like when we're not putting on a face - they'd want to trust us.
-
I've never known Len to use "That there's a felt need [as opposed to an unfelt need?] is an argument in support of the existence of the thing needed" as Vlad did in #22. That's the sort of witless flummery that C. S. Lewis used to pass off as pop theology, and Len is far too acute for that.
Perhaps you ought to re-read the post that he wrote and which I quoted, then, Shaker. It was he who introduced the phrase in #10 (the post I quoted), not Vlad.
-
we regard victimless crime as less serious than those with victims
Quite rightly so. I would hope that anybody with more than two brain cells to rub together and even the most rudimentary moral sense would do the same.
-
Quite rightly so. I would hope that anybody with more than two brain cells to rub together and even the most rudimentary moral sense would do the same.
OK,perhaps you can give some exampes of 'victimless crimes'.
-
Perhaps you ought to re-read the post that he wrote and which I quoted, then, Shaker. It was he who introduced the phrase in #10 (the post I quoted), not Vlad.
I have just re-read it now and it's not an example of Len deploying the Argument from Desire (unlike Vlad) as you seem to think it is, for some weird reason.
-
I have just re-read it now and it's not an example of Len deploying the Argument from Desire (unlike Vlad) as you seem to think it is, for some weird reason.
So, the post of yours I responded to used the phrase "... a felt need ...", something that Len was clearly referring to back in #10. Having challenged you, you now refer to 'the Argument from Desire' which is something that I don't think either Len or Vlad in their respective posts were on about.
-
OK,perhaps you can give some exampes of 'victimless crimes'.
Blasphemy laws are the obvious example that spring immediately to mind.
-
If not, what was it?
It was a commentary on the AfD, not a serious usage of it as in Vlad's case. Thus Len said:
Anybody who can be convinced to look for "God" needs it.
By this I take it that he means that anybody in search of a God is predisposed to believe in such a thing - the pump is already primed for such a belief, as it were. Len's statement is a comment about the AfD, and not as in Vlad's case in #22 a serious use of it on a par with the ontological argument, the teleological argument and lots of other big words he doesn't understand.
As for the rest of his comments:
The majority of atheists don't feel that need.
which is unarguably true, and:
Those few of us who have been in both places are probably in a stronger position than those who haven't.
is debatable. That would depend upon what's meant by a stronger position.
-
So, the post of yours I responded to used the phrase "... a felt need ...", something that Len was clearly referring to back in #10.
I never even saw #10 at the time - the phrase "a felt need" first appeared in #22 by Vlad, viz.: "Then there is the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, the moral argument, the psychological avoidance of God argument, argument from felt need ..."
Having challenged you, you now refer to 'the Argument from Desire' which is something that I don't think either Len or Vlad in their respective posts were on about.
I suggest you read #22 again and try to maintain that Vlad's litany of arguments for God, a list which includes "a felt need" as quoted above, is not synonymous with the foolish flim-flam of the Argument from Desire as espoused by Lewis and others similarly benighted.
-
I never even saw #10 at the time - ...
Having jumped into the middle of discussions without reading everything prior to a particular point myself, I'll accept this as a legit. excuse.
I suggest you read #22 again and try to maintain that Vlad's litany of arguments for God, a list which includes "a felt need" as quoted above, is not synonymous with the foolish flim-flam of the Argument from Desire as espoused by Lewis and others similarly benighted.
I'm not even sure that Vlad was trying to synonymise anything - that would have been rather more complex than he usually runs to. I assumed that he was simply indicating that there are some who dismiss arguments on the grounds that they disagree with their own opinions, without providing any means that invalidates said arguments.
-
I'm not even sure that Vlad was trying to synonymise anything - that would have been rather more complex than he usually runs to.
I won't disagree with you here :D
I assumed that he was simply indicating that there are some who dismiss arguments on the grounds that they disagree with their own opinions, without providing any means that invalidates said arguments.
Impressions are one thing; but the fact that he listed the ontological argument, the teleological argument, the moral argument and so forth and then added "argument from felt need" indicated to me that he intended "a felt need" [for God] to be an argument for God's existence on a par with the others.
I agree with him up to a point in that the Argument from Desire is indeed on a par with the others - all the other arguments were disposed of long ago ;)
-
However, I would also point out that the reason we tend to regard them as nasty is precisely because they haven't used the Biblical deity as a role model!
What like those charming folk from the Westboro Baptist church, who I'm sure are 100% convinced they are using the Biblical deity as a role model.
There are plenty of people about (and have been for centuries) who use the bible as a guide to support them in doing all sorts of appalling things.
-
Just looked at the link, but there seems to be a bit missing from the version I uploaded. All the smug complacency twaddle is there but the final section: "What To Do If The Atheist's Arguments Turn Out To Be Better Than Yours And You Have No Choice But To Conclude That He's Right" is missing.
Funny that.
-
FD,
......Then there is the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, the moral argument, the psychological avoidance of God argument, argument from felt need......and all the other arguments that antitheists claim have failed logically but that actually means they have only been established as not without counter argument.
Um, I wonder if perhaps you shouldn't consider taking a class in theology or some such. These "arguments" are so desperately poor that as I understand it even more nuanced theists have long since given up on them as lost causes. I've no idea what they've come up with instead, but I presume they must have something beyond your foot stamping, Violet Elizabeth Bott, "It'th twoo, it'th twoo becoth I thay it'th twoo" effort so far. (Or as you call it, "intuition".)
Maybe if they have you might want to consider deploying it here so as to avoid further embarrassment in future?
-
Just looked at the link, but there seems to be a bit missing from the version I uploaded. All the smug complacency twaddle is there but the final section: "What To Do If The Atheist's Arguments Turn Out To Be Better Than Yours And You Have No Choice But To Conclude That He's Right" is missing.
Funny that.
It's not missing, they took their own advice: denial.
-
jeremy,
It's not missing, they took their own advice: denial.
Oh right, that must be it then. Thanks.
-
What like those charming folk from the Westboro Baptist church, who I'm sure are 100% convinced they are using the Biblical deity as a role model.
I read an interview with someone who had studied at Bob Jones University at the same time as Phelps. He made it clear that Phelps' position on homophobia was not in line with the official university line. Yes, they felt/feel that homosexuality was/is wrong but didn't come to the same conclusions concerning the way we ought to deal with such folk as Phelps. That is why, PD, I said that "... the reason we tend to regard them as nasty is precisely because they haven't used the Biblical deity as a role model!" I'd also add that this particular group didn't/don't even use the Bible as a role model.
There are plenty of people about (and have been for centuries) who use the bible as a guide to support them in doing all sorts of appalling things.
Including some non-believers!!
-
Hope,
I read an interview with someone who had studied at Bob Jones University at the same time as Phelps. He made it clear that Phelps' position on homophobia was not in line with the official university line.
Why on earth would a university of all places have an "official line" on homosexuality, other that is than indifference?
Yes, they felt/feel that homosexuality was/is wrong...
Then they should be fucking ashamed of themselves.
...but didn't come to the same conclusions concerning the way we ought to deal with such folk as Phelps.
"The way to deal with such folks"???!!!!!???
Seriously?
Seriously seriously?
That is why, PD, I said that "... the reason we tend to regard them as nasty is precisely because they haven't used the Biblical deity as a role model!" I'd also add that this particular group didn't/don't even use the Bible as a role model.
But the scumbags you seem to approve of provide cover for the Phelp's of this world - "we all agree that what gay people get up to in private is a "sin" right, only maybe ol' Fred has taken it a bit too far."
Absolutely contemptible.
-
Dear blue,
"What To Do If The Atheist's Arguments Turn Out To Be Better Than Yours And You Have No Choice But To Conclude That He's Right" is missing.
Where!! never seen or heard of a convincing argument for atheism.
1. Teleological argument, design argument, not my favourite argument, all I know is it works, nature works, it is extremely efficient, it makes sure life goes on, well unless we step in, we think we can improve on nature, better than God.
2. Avoiding God, well that is where my posts lately have been going, we are made to believe.
3. Cosmological argument, my favourite :P it comes from science, science bleats on about fine tuning, then it argues against it, sciences say everything had to be absolutely perfect at the big bang, a fleas hair either way and I would not be typing this, it comes from science, two scientists on TED only two days ago were referring to fine tuning ( multi verses ) if it is dead in the water, leave it, step away, nothing to see here, move on folks, but the scientists don't, they ask the question, why!!
Gonnagle.
-
I read an interview with someone who had studied at Bob Jones University at the same time as Phelps. He made it clear that Phelps' position on homophobia was not in line with the official university line. Yes, they felt/feel that homosexuality was/is wrong but didn't come to the same conclusions concerning the way we ought to deal with such folk as Phelps. That is why, PD, I said that "... the reason we tend to regard them as nasty is precisely because they haven't used the Biblical deity as a role model!" I'd also add that this particular group didn't/don't even use the Bible as a role model.
Including some non-believers!!
The Biblical deity teaches us that homosexuality is an abomination to be punished by death.
-
Hi Gonners,
Where!! never seen or heard of a convincing argument for atheism.
Why not? My argument for atheism is the same as your argument for a-leprechaunism after all.
1. Teleological argument, design argument, not my favourite argument, all I know is it works, nature works, it is extremely efficient, it makes sure life goes on, well unless we step in, we think we can improve on nature, better than God.
It’s ass-backwards and solipsistic – we fit the universe, not the other way around.
2. Avoiding God, well that is where my posts lately have been going, we are made to believe.
You can’t “avoid” something you’ve been given no cogent reason to think exists in the first place.
3. Cosmological argument, my favourite it comes from science, science bleats on about fine tuning, then it argues against it, sciences say everything had to be absolutely perfect at the big bang, a fleas hair either way and I would not be typing this, it comes from science, two scientists on TED only two days ago were referring to fine tuning ( multi verses ) if it is dead in the water, leave it, step away, nothing to see here, move on folks, but the scientists don't, they ask the question, why!!
No, “science” just says that the universe must have been just so back when for it to look as it does now. Had there been slightly different starting conditions, it would look different now and a three-toed gringle monster on Alpha Centauri would be posting, “How special am I – the universe is designed just for me”.
-
Dear blue,
Where!! never seen or heard of a convincing argument for atheism.
1. Teleological argument, design argument, not my favourite argument, all I know is it works, nature works, it is extremely efficient, it makes sure life goes on, well unless we step in, we think we can improve on nature, better than God.
2. Avoiding God, well that is where my posts lately have been going, we are made to believe.
3. Cosmological argument, my favourite :P it comes from science, science bleats on about fine tuning, then it argues against it, sciences say everything had to be absolutely perfect at the big bang, a fleas hair either way and I would not be typing this, it comes from science, two scientists on TED only two days ago were referring to fine tuning ( multi verses ) if it is dead in the water, leave it, step away, nothing to see here, move on folks, but the scientists don't, they ask the question, why!!
Gonnagle.
I agree with you Mr G on point 3 in particular, you are right to remind us that fine tuning and multiverse are both out of the stable of science.
Despite any thing we hear to the contrary even Bluehillside's latest science pin up boy Sean Carroll has been taken to task for announcing he is trying to solve the fine tuning 'problem'. Other atheist science writers have questioned in what sense it is a problem since it is only really a problem for antitheism.
Fine tuning seems good for the one universe we have. To favour multiverse just to avoid it doesn't seem like science.
I personally think that multiverse actually poses a problem for antitheists.
-
I agree with him up to a point in that the Argument from Desire is indeed on a par with the others - all the other arguments were disposed of long ago ;)
I really think you actually believe that you and others have actually disposed of them.
It is yet another example of a Hillsidian reply. Teachers will repeat an explanation. Philosophical dilletanteism obviously doesn't.
Let me be a good teacher and repeat again. What you call disposed of is nothing more than coming up with an alternative argument. The last one to really try was Outrider trying to disprove uncaused cause
He only came up with uncaused matter and an alternative in which causation AND uncaused was somehow dismissed.
When exactly was argument from desire disposed of on this board?.......or is that just the antitheists equivalent of ''It is written''
The term disposal is dirty, stinking, purulent,shuffling antitheist hype.
I see Hillside has resurrected the old Leprechaun schtick.
-
Hi Gonners,
Why not? My argument for atheism is the same as your argument for a-leprechaunism after all.
It’s ass-backwards and solipsistic – we fit the universe, not the other way around.
You can’t “avoid” something you’ve been given no cogent reason to think exists in the first place.
No, “science” just says that the universe must have been just so back when for it to look as it does now. Had there been slightly different starting conditions, it would look different now and a three-toed gringle monster on Alpha Centauri would be posting, “How special am I – the universe is designed just for me”.
Hillside I think you are gussying up a ''universe is'' argument into a ''why the universe is like this argument'' or at least proposing we should be forbidden certain questions..
That the observed universe has constants harmonised with the existence of life is a fact.
I don't need a fine tuned universe for belief. But apparently the Sean Carrolls of this world need there not to be one.
-
Hope,
Why on earth would a university of all places have an "official line" on homosexuality, other that is than indifference?
Then they should be fucking ashamed of themselves.
"The way to deal with such folks"???!!!!!???
Seriously?
Seriously seriously?
But the scumbags you seem to approve of provide cover for the Phelp's of this world - "we all agree that what gay people get up to in private is a "sin" right, only maybe ol' Fred has taken it a bit too far."
Absolutely contemptible.
Can't argue with this, Blue.
-
One could turn it around, of course, and ask:
'How to persuade a christian to become atheist (or at the very least non religious)'
The answer - do nothing, just wait until they grow up and become adults and hey presto about 50% will have become non religious.
-
One could turn it around, of course, and ask:
'How to persuade a christian to become atheist (or at the very least non religious)'
The answer - do nothing, just wait until they grow up and become adults and hey presto about 50% will have become non religious.
Though wikihow does cover that as welll
http://m.wikihow.com/Persuade-a-Christian-to-Become-Atheist
Personally I think worrying about whether someone is atheist, theist or whatever is stunningly less important than how they act towards others. It's no more important than which end of the egg they open.
-
Found an interesting juxtaposition on a website run by cracked magazine of all places:
"Atheism is inevitable secular progress. Its existence is a thing society needs. However, too many atheists act like missionaries -- evangelizing at strangers who just want to live their lives, feeling and acting smugly superior because of their (non)beliefs, and insisting that a greater good justifies their asshole behavior. I would know; I'm an atheist myself, so I talk to them all the goddamn time. So it's especially frustrating when my more devoutly atheist friends don't realize that not only do a lot of their arguments fall on deaf ears, but also how in the long run, they hurt their own cause way more than they help. Here are a few examples."
http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-atheist-arguments-which-arent-helping-anyone/
-
Then why has there been a group out in Hounslow High Street yelling their message of redemption and entrance to heaven by confession and forgiveness of sin to anyone who is stupid enough to walk anywhere near them?
Read Chapter 10 of Acts. How does anyone hear about Christ and are saved/ They hear the word. I believe that part speaks for itself. They don't go home with them and try talking them into believing. You need think for yourself and reason without bias. My post is not altered as far as the contents. You cannot talk anyone into being a believer.
-
Oh - I've heard about this ~Jesus~ bloke. Where is he now, and how do I make an appointment to have a chat with him?
Just believe in your heart he is the Son of God who died for your sins and he will come to you.
I guess in reality you do not want to know him, You are just curious due to your sense of laughing at it most of the time.
-
Just believe in your heart he is the Son of God who died for your sins and he will come to you.
I guess in reality you do not want to know him, You are just curious due to your sense of laughing at it most of the time.
Your problem, Sass, is that your sense of humour doesn't appreciate just how amusing it is.
-
The only thing I need to become a christian is ... evidence.
But lets face it if there were evidence then we would all be christians and it wouldn't all be dependent of fanciful wishful thinking or as our christian colleagues call it ... faith ;D
-
Just believe in your heart he is the Son of God who died for your sins and he will come to you.
I guess in reality you do not want to know him, You are just curious due to your sense of laughing at it most of the time.
That isn't true. I believed in him as a child and he didn't give me any sign of his presence when I needed him!
-
I really think you actually believe that you and others have actually disposed of them.
Not so much me personally but some awfully clever bods who got there first - Kant, Hume, etc.
Let me be a good teacher and repeat again. What you call disposed of is nothing more than coming up with an alternative argument.
No, actually I was thinking more along the lines of demonstrating the premises of an argument to be defective, as Kant did with the ontological argument.
-
Dear Farmer,
http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-atheist-arguments-which-arent-helping-anyone/
Good link, all there, well except flying spaghetti monsters, remind me again, why does it have to fly, is it not omnipresent :o
I did like this question,
"Would Jesus prefer billions of dollars in paintings or feeding the poor?")
;)
Gonnagle.
-
Just believe in your heart he is the Son of God who died for your sins and he will come to you.
I guess in reality you do not want to know him, You are just curious due to your sense of laughing at it most of the time.
2
ippy
-
Dear Farmer,
http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-atheist-arguments-which-arent-helping-anyone/
Good link, all there, well except flying spaghetti monsters, remind me again, why does it have to fly, is it not omnipresent :o
I did like this question,
;)
Gonnagle.
Well, feeding the poor just turns the money into shit ... the paintings will probably increase in value! Mammon has spoken.
-
FD,
I agree with you Mr G on point 3 in particular, you are right to remind us that fine tuning and multiverse are both out of the stable of science.
No he isn’t. They may be “out of the stable of science”, but the conclusions he draws are wholly erroneous.
Despite any thing we hear to the contrary even Bluehillside's latest science pin up boy Sean Carroll has been taken to task for announcing he is trying to solve the fine tuning 'problem'. Other atheist science writers have questioned in what sense it is a problem since it is only really a problem for antitheism.
You’re confusing “antitheism” with “atheism” again, and it’s not a problem at all for either. It’s actually only a problem for those daft enough to think that the universe was designed to fit them, rather than that we evolved to fit the universe.
Fine tuning seems good for the one universe we have. To favour multiverse just to avoid it doesn't seem like science.
“Fine tuning” isn’t “good” for anything – it’s just Douglas Adams’s puddle again, and no-one “favours” a multiverse to avoid anything.
I personally think that multiverse actually poses a problem for antitheists.
Then, as ever, you personally are flat wrong.
I really think you actually believe that you and others have actually disposed of them.
I really think that you think they haven’t. Some of us can only explain so many times and in so many ways that two plus two does not equal five. That you lie about or just ignore those rebuttals only to pop up again a bit later with another “two plus two equals five” assertion is not a counter-rebuttal, it’s just more dishonesty.
It is yet another example of a Hillsidian reply. Teachers will repeat an explanation. Philosophical dilletanteism obviously doesn't.
Repeating in the face of your obtuseness the explanation for why two plus two does not equal five does not make the explanation any less true.
Let me be a good teacher…
You can’t be a good teacher unless you first have something to teach.
…and repeat again. What you call disposed of is nothing more than coming up with an alternative argument. The last one to really try was Outrider trying to disprove uncaused cause
He only came up with uncaused matter and an alternative in which causation AND uncaused was somehow dismissed.
Why even bother lying about something so readily checkable? You’ve had the various reasons for the “uncaused cause” stupidity given to you several times now, yet you just misrepresent or ignore them.
Why?
When exactly was argument from desire disposed of on this board?.......or is that just the antitheists equivalent of ''It is written''
To “dispose” of an argument you need to make an argument in the first place. Wishful thinking (or as you call it, “the argument from desire”) isn’t an argument of any kind.
The term disposal is dirty, stinking, purulent,shuffling antitheist hype.
Bad meds again perhaps?
I see Hillside has resurrected the old Leprechaun schtick.
Yeah, well when it works perfectly well to show you where you’ve gone wrong again then why not?
Hillside I think you are gussying up a ''universe is'' argument into a ''why the universe is like this argument'' or at least proposing we should be forbidden certain questions.
Then, as ever, you think wrongly.
That the observed universe has constants harmonised with the existence of life is a fact.
No it isn’t. That life has characteristics aligned with the universe is the only fact, not your ass-backwards version of it.
I don't need a fine tuned universe for belief. But apparently the Sean Carrolls of this world need there not to be one.
That’s nice for you.
So?
Of course you could finally attempt a real argument by proposing a method by which anyone else could distinguish your "intuited" beliefs from just guessing about stuff, but we both know that you'll eternally run away from that one don't we now. Still, at least having you post yet more mistakes here stops you from spending time making up more quotes to mis-ascribe to Richard Dawkins I guess.
So that's good.
-
Your problem, Sass, is that your sense of humour doesn't appreciate just how amusing it is.
Len, I think her sense of humour fully appreciates just how amusing the arguments that the likes of you put forward are.
-
Len, I think her sense of humour fully appreciates just how amusing the arguments that the likes of you put forward are.
Yes, it's all part of the way religion warps people's ability to perceive life.
-
Yes, it's all part of the way religion warps people's ability to perceive life.
Or lack of it, perhaps :) After all, many people, of all faiths and none, have been able to perceive the threats of climate change, terrorism, global economic issues, changing patterns of crime, etc., etc. for years. Equally, people from the self same backgrounds have argued that said threats have never and don't exist now.
-
Or lack of it, perhaps :) After all, many people, of all faiths and none, have been able to perceive the threats of climate change, terrorism, global economic issues, changing patterns of crime, etc., etc. for years. Equally, people from the self same backgrounds have argued that said threats have never and don't exist now.
Until there is a glimmer of evidence for something, it is a product of the imagination. Out of the millions of things that people imagine, some are bound to materialise.
-
Or lack of it, perhaps :) After all, many people, of all faiths and none, have been able to perceive the threats of climate change, terrorism, global economic issues, changing patterns of crime, etc., etc. for years. Equally, people from the self same backgrounds have argued that said threats have never and don't exist now.
But there is evidence for climate change - you can measure it - both in global temperatures, and also affects such as glacial melt or polar ice cap area. It isn't a 'belief'.
Sure some people chose to ignore the evidence - or perhaps interpret it in a different way to the orthodox interpretation, but there is still evidence there.
-
The only thing I need to become a christian is ... evidence.
But lets face it if there were evidence then we would all be christians and it wouldn't all be dependent of fanciful wishful thinking or as our christian colleagues call it ... faith ;D
Believing is seeing....rather than seeing is believing.
That is the point thought isn't it... The evidence from that is your reason to believe.
We all make the conscious choice. We hear the word and some fall away before bearing fruit.
Why would anyone want to do something that appears difficult on the surface. Some are just happy to carry on disbelieving it is easier in their eyes and opinion.
Till you take the stand how do you know?
-
That isn't true. I believed in him as a child and he didn't give me any sign of his presence when I needed him!
King James Bible
Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
If you could not love your parents how can you love God.
If you obey Christs commandments him and his Father would have revealed himself to you.
King James Bible
Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
As a child and even now I love my parents.
Whom have you ever loved more than you love yourself? Do you even love yourself? :(
-
If you could not love your parents how can you love God.
If you obey Christs commandments him and his Father would have revealed himself to you.
As a child and even now I love my parents.
Whom have you ever loved more than you love yourself? Do you even love yourself? :(
Sass as usual you have no idea what you are talking about. You have no idea whom I love and whom I don't. :o
As for the Biblical deity it would be like loving Hitler!
-
Believing is seeing....rather than seeing is believing.
No believing is having evidence for those beliefs rather than believing without evidence, simple.
That is the point thought isn't it... The evidence from that is your reason to believe.
No idea what that means?
We all make the conscious choice. We hear the word and some fall away before bearing fruit.
Again, that is gibberish if you mean we all got religious education when we were young it was full of holes even back then and as I got older I realised only members of the corn circle society and meth drinkers would believe any nonsense written in the bible.
Why would anyone want to do something that appears difficult on the surface. Some are just happy to carry on disbelieving it is easier in their eyes and opinion.
Geezzz... you really can't think outside your own ideals can you sass? :'(
I would say the opposite. You believe in your god because it's to difficult to for you not to, imagine death final absolute, scare you?
Till you take the stand how do you know?
If I was to 'take a stand' i would rather believe in other gods rather than yours, but then out of the hundreds of gods man has believed in for some reason you only believe in one without evidence and dismiss the others for the same reason ::) Kids ;D
I'll stick with fairies thanks. 8)
-
I'll stick with fairies thanks. 8)
Fairies are Pagan angels - the messengers of the deities.
-
Fairies are Pagan angels - the messengers of the deities.
Oh gawd, I hope you're kidding!
-
I think you'll find fairies are something else altogether 8)
-
I think you'll find fairies are something else altogether 8)
Age old comment on here - 1 - who says?
2 - Prove it!
-
Age old comment on here - 1 - who says?
2 - Prove it!
I know plenty of fairies - I think you aare taking my comment altogether too seriously.
-
I know plenty of fairies - I think you aare taking my comment altogether too seriously.
Ooh, get her!
-
I know plenty of fairies - I think you aare taking my comment altogether too seriously.
In which case we may, just possibly, have friends in common!
-
Historically, the most successful technique for recruiting Christians has been to point out to the candidate how much longer and less painful their life would be if they converted to the 'one true faith'. (PDQ)
A more recent technique has been to show those who are in deep shit for financial or sexual misdemeanour's, that becoming a 'Born Again' can be a useful tool into their rehabilitation into society (and will go down well with the parole board)
-
The Sugar Plum Fairy!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jt3oAyK_IG8
-
L.A.,
Historically, the most successful technique for recruiting Christians has been to point out to the candidate how much longer and less painful their life would be if they converted to the 'one true faith'. (PDQ)
A more recent technique has been to show those who are in deep shit for financial or sexual misdemeanour's, that becoming a 'Born Again' can be a useful tool into their rehabilitation into society (and will go down well with the parole board)
That's interesting. I saw a documentary a while back about the US prison system (possibly Louis Theroux) where some "born again" prisoners explained their previous crimes with "back then the devil took me" or some such. Impossible to know which actually believed it and which saw it as a useful tactic for the parole board, but it's a handy way of shifting blame and responsibility onto a third party - "wasn't me guv, it was Stan's fault" etc.
I've seen it in a less formalised form when the criminal says, "that wasn't the real me that did those things" as a way of shifting blame as a means of getting themselves off the hook, at least in their heads.
-
L.A.,
That's interesting. I saw a documentary a while back about the US prison system (possibly Louis Theroux) where some "born again" prisoners explained their previous crimes with "back then the devil took me" or some such. Impossible to know which actually believed it and which saw it as a useful tactic for the parole board, but it's a handy way of shifting blame and responsibility onto a third party - "wasn't me guv, it was Stan's fault" etc.
I've seen it in a less formalised form when the criminal says, "that wasn't the real me that did those things" as a way of shifting blame as a means of getting themselves off the hook, at least in their heads.
I find a post like this ironic when it,s contents are a moral non realist moaning about people getting away with it. Getting away with what?
-
I find a post like this ironic when it,s contents are a moral non realist moaning about people getting away with it. Getting away with what?
I merely observe Vlad, I'll leave the moralising to others.
-
FD,
I find a post like this ironic when it,s contents are a moral non realist moaning about people getting away with it. Getting away with what?
Immorality.
You're not about to fall back into your old mistake of assuming that morality requires absolutism are you?
Are you?
-
You really want me to be a christian?
Just give me lots of cash and a guarantee that I don't have to tolerate any other christians until we get to imaginary heaven :) CONVERTED!
-
Making loads of monies is easy. Kid on you are in direct contact with Jesus. Create a website asking for donations to help you communicate with Jesus with the promise you will get Jesus to help those who donate. Start a megachurch, stride about claiming that you are the conduit to Jesus for your congregation, by shouting his name a lot and asking for amens'.
Within a few short years, you is mega rich...
-
Making loads of monies is easy. Kid on you are in direct contact with Jesus. Create a website asking for donations to help you communicate with Jesus with the promise you will get Jesus to help those who donate. Start a megachurch, stride about claiming that you are the conduit to Jesus for your congregation, by shouting his name a lot and asking for amens'.
Within a few short years, you is mega rich...
Aha! Use the American Evangelical model for wealth creation - otherwise known as "the Con-Gane".
-
I had to google matty's "Con-Gane" and I got no results. (snork)
As far as con-games go, well I know an agnostic that is a pro at it.
-
How does that work?
I've gone back to the beginning of this thread, the post that Shaker replied to said something of the ilk of 'ignore atheists'.
I honestly don't know how that works! However I do believe that we should respect the right of everyone to believe or not believe and not do a hard sell. Even for believers, it is somewhat off putting when people heavily evangelise. Let us live and let live and give people space to explore. It worked for me - I have no wish to personalise this thread - and I believe that God sorts out all the seekers - but many will disagree. No problem.
-
FD,
Immorality.
You're not about to fall back into your old mistake of assuming that morality requires absolutism are you?
Dear CC
it is for anyone who isn't just pulling a "morality" out of their arse.
Anything else I can help you with?
-
FD,
Dear CC
it is for anyone who isn't just pulling a "morality" out of their arse.
That's a lot of stupid to cram into so few words.
As you've crashed straight back into your moral absolutism idiocy I'll leave you to your personal grief I think.
Anything else I can help you with?
Yes - try getting at least a basic education before returning, if only to save yourself some of the contempt and pity your thuggishness engenders.
-
How to Persuade an Atheist to Become Christian?
The simplest way would be to tell the atheist that for every atheist who turns to Christ a Justin Bieber fan turns to Heavy Metal!
-
You're still shooting blanks Matty.
-
Vasectomy aye?
-
Vasectomy aye?
Aye! When, after eight years, my wife (now ex-wife (of twenty years standing)) fell pregnant again! Bit of a shock that as she had gone to the Doc to check to see if she was medivally OK for her to be sterilised; she wsas told "no she wasn't" 'cos she was fourand a half moths pregnant!!
-
How to Persuade an Atheist to Become Christian?
The simplest way would be to tell the atheist that for every atheist who turns to Christ a Justin Bieber fan turns to Heavy Metal!
I don't know any Justin Bieber songs but hate heavy metal so wouldn't work with me.
-
I don't know any Justin Bieber songs but hate heavy metal so wouldn't work with me.
There is always one exception that proves the rule!
-
There is always one exception that proves the rule!
I don't think I'm alone in hating Heavy Metal and doubt many of my generation would know anything about Justin Bieber. I guess musical tastes is reflected in the circles in which you move to some extent though.
-
The simplest way would be to tell the atheist that for every atheist who turns to Christ a Justin Bieber fan turns to Heavy Metal!
I would assume that both bebiers and HM fans are christians anyway since they are willing suffering in this life (probably masochists to!!) :)
-
New Athiest Fundamentalism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrS9OeDcd-Q