Convince Atheists

[Peach]

Many kinds of intelligence. Recent discoveries in orca intelligence reveals they're vastly superior to humans in emotional intelligence (compassion, empathy, etc.) And this superior intelligence might be what's responsible for mass whale strandings/beachings. When one's in distress their superior capacity for love makes them all rush in to help, or even die together instead of alone.

Atheists by their very definition are not even a relatively intelligent group. To say definitively there is no God, anywhere, or anything like it in the rather large universe is the ultimate hubris. But this is true for the theists as well, and for the very same reason. Until you've been everywhere in the cosmos, catalogued every species, studied every religion you can't say anything definitive about gods, God, or anything else spiritual because your knowledge of it is limited to Earth. YOu can 'believe' anything you want absent evidence of any kind. But when people make declarative statements like "God doesn't eixst." or "God does exist." that requires proof. If they said, "I believe in God." that'd be that.

The evidence there is creator is astounding.

 

[jwoodie]

True that other than christians proselytize. Morms too. Maybe other than christians want idols in govt bldgs too. Religion belongs in churches. If atheists tried to force their beliefs into govt, schools, etc, I would feel the same. As it is, religions can practice/pray any place they wish , including schools. They should not have the right to force it on others.

What is unreasonable about that?

What is unreasonable is your implication that Atheists (yes, it is a religion) don't force their beliefs into govt, schools, etc. Have you been asleep for the last 50 years? Virtually ALL of the legal and political regulations in our public institutions regarding religious beliefs have been imposed by Atheists and their supporters.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

True that other than christians proselytize. Morms too. Maybe other than christians want idols in govt bldgs too. Religion belongs in churches. If atheists tried to force their beliefs into govt, schools, etc, I would feel the same. As it is, religions can practice/pray any place they wish , including schools. They should not have the right to force it on others.

What is unreasonable about that?

Proselytization is not a violation of your rights.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Many kinds of intelligence. Recent discoveries in orca intelligence reveals they're vastly superior to humans in emotional intelligence (compassion, empathy, etc.) And this superior intelligence might be what's responsible for mass whale strandings/beachings. When one's in distress their superior capacity for love makes them all rush in to help, or even die together instead of alone.

Atheists by their very definition are not even a relatively intelligent group. To say definitively there is no God, anywhere, or anything like it in the rather large universe is the ultimate hubris. But this is true for the theists as well, and for the very same reason. Until you've been everywhere in the cosmos, catalogued every species, studied every religion you can't say anything definitive about gods, God, or anything else spiritual because your knowledge of it is limited to Earth. YOu can 'believe' anything you want absent evidence of any kind. But when people make declarative statements like "God doesn't eixst." or "God does exist." that requires proof. If they said, "I believe in God." that'd be that.

The evidence there is creator is astounding.

Only to those who have decided to believe.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

True that other than christians proselytize. Morms too. Maybe other than christians want idols in govt bldgs too. Religion belongs in churches. If atheists tried to force their beliefs into govt, schools, etc, I would feel the same. As it is, religions can practice/pray any place they wish , including schools. They should not have the right to force it on others.

What is unreasonable about that?

What is unreasonable is your implication that Atheists (yes, it is a religion) don't force their beliefs into govt, schools, etc. Have you been asleep for the last 50 years? Virtually ALL of the legal and political regulations in our public institutions regarding religious beliefs have been imposed by Atheists and their supporters.

Nope. Actually, its been the SCOTUS upholding the First Amendment.

Even so, you're more than welcome to pray in govt buildings, schools, public and/or private buildings. There is no place, that I'm aware of, where that is prohibited.

What is prohibited is that others be forced to join or endure. Except, of course, in violation of the First Amendment, religious statuary is indeed in one/some/many public buildings.

Religion belongs in churches. Period.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

True that other than christians proselytize. Morms too. Maybe other than christians want idols in govt bldgs too. Religion belongs in churches. If atheists tried to force their beliefs into govt, schools, etc, I would feel the same. As it is, religions can practice/pray any place they wish, including schools. They should not have the right to force it on others.

What is unreasonable about that?

Proselytization is not a violation of your rights.

Of course it is.

Some yahoo banging on my door on a Sat morning, demanding that I listen to some nonsensical crap, then leaving trash tracts on my porch and coming back repeatedly to preach is indeed a violation of my rights.

And, just try getting them to stop coming. The more you tell them to get off your property, the more they want to discuss your personal relationship with their cult.

Religion belongs in churches - NOT on my front porch.

 

[sealybobo]

that they are not the highest form of intelligence in the universe. (Impossible.)

What would convince an atheist of a god’s existence?

A particular standard of evidence is required to prove any claim. This ‘standard’ is adjusted depending upon the nature of the claim. Since god’s existence is an extraordinary claim, perhaps the most extraordinary claim, proving it requires equally extraordinary evidence.

The standard of evidence required to prove a god’s existence is immediately more than any personal anecdote, witness testimony, ancient book or reported miracle – none of which can be considered extraordinarily reliable. The human mind is also highly susceptible to being fooled and even fooling itself. One could be suffering from an hallucination or a form of undiagnosed schizophrenia, hysteria or psychosis, ruling out even our own senses as reliable evidence gathering mechanisms in this case. As strange as it sounds, misunderstood aliens might even be attempting to interact with us using extremely advanced technology. In fact, reality itself could be a computer simulation which we unknowingly inhabit.

Every conceivable argument, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof. Note: This is not the same as being close-minded.

There is, however, a simple answer to this question: God is what it would take to convince an atheist. An omniscient god would know the exact standard of evidence required to convince any atheist of its existence and, being omnipotent, it would also be able to immediately produce this evidence. If it wanted to, a god could conceivably change the brain chemistry of any individual in order to compel them to believe. It could even restructure the entire universe in such a way as to make non-belief impossible.

In short, a god actually proving its own existence is what would convince any atheist of said god’s existence.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

that they are not the highest form of intelligence in the universe. (Impossible.)

What would convince an atheist of a god’s existence?

A particular standard of evidence is required to prove any claim. This ‘standard’ is adjusted depending upon the nature of the claim. Since god’s existence is an extraordinary claim, perhaps the most extraordinary claim, proving it requires equally extraordinary evidence.

The standard of evidence required to prove a god’s existence is immediately more than any personal anecdote, witness testimony, ancient book or reported miracle – none of which can be considered extraordinarily reliable. The human mind is also highly susceptible to being fooled and even fooling itself. One could be suffering from an hallucination or a form of undiagnosed schizophrenia, hysteria or psychosis, ruling out even our own senses as reliable evidence gathering mechanisms in this case. As strange as it sounds, misunderstood aliens might even be attempting to interact with us using extremely advanced technology. In fact, reality itself could be a computer simulation which we unknowingly inhabit.

Every conceivable argument, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof. Note: This is not the same as being close-minded.

There is, however, a simple answer to this question: God is what it would take to convince an atheist. An omniscient god would know the exact standard of evidence required to convince any atheist of its existence and, being omnipotent, it would also be able to immediately produce this evidence. If it wanted to, a god could conceivably change the brain chemistry of any individual in order to compel them to believe. It could even restructure the entire universe in such a way as to make non-belief impossible.

In short, a god actually proving its own existence is what would convince any atheist of said god’s existence.

In truth, there is nothing complex about this.

God created the Universe, the universe exists, therefore God exists.

But your original point is valid and in my opinion spot on. The anti-theists are merely using an unreasonable standard. If the standard were the 'reasonable doubt' standard common to contests in criminal prosecution, the existence of God would be readily accepted.

Were it the preponderance of evidence standard common to civil contests, the same... only exponentially more so.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Religious intelligence:

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Religious intelligence:

That's a photo of the effects of socialism on the desperate, otherwise known as Jone's Town, Guyana. Which was the original "Hope for Change" campaign.

Jonestown was built and tyrannized by a communist who went by the name of Jim Jones. His vision ended, as all 'experiments in Left-think' end, in death and destruction.

 

[jwoodie]

True that other than christians proselytize. Morms too. Maybe other than christians want idols in govt bldgs too. Religion belongs in churches. If atheists tried to force their beliefs into govt, schools, etc, I would feel the same. As it is, religions can practice/pray any place they wish , including schools. They should not have the right to force it on others.

What is unreasonable about that?

What is unreasonable is your implication that Atheists (yes, it is a religion) don't force their beliefs into govt, schools, etc. Have you been asleep for the last 50 years? Virtually ALL of the legal and political regulations in our public institutions regarding religious beliefs have been imposed by Atheists and their supporters.

Nope. Actually, its been the SCOTUS upholding the First Amendment.

Even so, you're more than welcome to pray in govt buildings, schools, public and/or private buildings. There is no place, that I'm aware of, where that is prohibited.

What is prohibited is that others be forced to join or endure. Except, of course, in violation of the First Amendment, religious statuary is indeed in one/some/many public buildings.

Religion belongs in churches. Period.

1. SCOTUS decisions are legal regulation.

2. Exactly who is being "forced to join" what?

3. We all "endure" the religious beliefs of others. Why should there be a First Amendment exception for Atheists?

4. "Period." Does that mean "Don't confuse me with any more facts or logic?"

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

that they are not the highest form of intelligence in the universe. (Impossible.)

Every conceivable argument, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof. Note: This is not the same as being close-minded.

Utter nonsense.

Atheism is easily the stupidest notion ever imagined by man. Its premise doesn’t even get off the ground logically, and atheists routinely make the most incredibly stupid arguments against theism.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/370283-convince-atheists.html#post9614503

Atheists are notoriously bad philosophers, including the likes of Krauss and Hawking.

Prufrock's Lair: A Mountain of Nothin' out of Somethin' or Another

 

[Luddly Neddite]

that they are not the highest form of intelligence in the universe. (Impossible.)

What would convince an atheist of a god’s existence?

A particular standard of evidence is required to prove any claim. This ‘standard’ is adjusted depending upon the nature of the claim. Since god’s existence is an extraordinary claim, perhaps the most extraordinary claim, proving it requires equally extraordinary evidence.

The standard of evidence required to prove a god’s existence is immediately more than any personal anecdote, witness testimony, ancient book or reported miracle – none of which can be considered extraordinarily reliable. The human mind is also highly susceptible to being fooled and even fooling itself. One could be suffering from an hallucination or a form of undiagnosed schizophrenia, hysteria or psychosis, ruling out even our own senses as reliable evidence gathering mechanisms in this case. As strange as it sounds, misunderstood aliens might even be attempting to interact with us using extremely advanced technology. In fact, reality itself could be a computer simulation which we unknowingly inhabit.

Every conceivable argument, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof. Note: This is not the same as being close-minded.

There is, however, a simple answer to this question: God is what it would take to convince an atheist. An omniscient god would know the exact standard of evidence required to convince any atheist of its existence and, being omnipotent, it would also be able to immediately produce this evidence. If it wanted to, a god could conceivably change the brain chemistry of any individual in order to compel them to believe. It could even restructure the entire universe in such a way as to make non-belief impossible.

In short, a god actually proving its own existence is what would convince any atheist of said god’s existence.

In truth, there is nothing complex about this.

God created the Universe, the universe exists, therefore God exists.

But your original point is valid and in my opinion spot on. The anti-theists are merely using an unreasonable standard. If the standard were the 'reasonable doubt' standard common to contests in criminal prosecution, the existence of God would be readily accepted.

Were it the preponderance of evidence standard common to civil contests, the same... only exponentially more so.

That is true because you choose to believe its true.

The same can be said of the atheist, of course.

What is a "reasonable standard" is in the eye of the beholder.

The god-believer looks up at the stars and that's all they need.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

What would convince an atheist of a god’s existence?

A particular standard of evidence is required to prove any claim. This ‘standard’ is adjusted depending upon the nature of the claim. Since god’s existence is an extraordinary claim, perhaps the most extraordinary claim, proving it requires equally extraordinary evidence.

The standard of evidence required to prove a god’s existence is immediately more than any personal anecdote, witness testimony, ancient book or reported miracle – none of which can be considered extraordinarily reliable. The human mind is also highly susceptible to being fooled and even fooling itself. One could be suffering from an hallucination or a form of undiagnosed schizophrenia, hysteria or psychosis, ruling out even our own senses as reliable evidence gathering mechanisms in this case. As strange as it sounds, misunderstood aliens might even be attempting to interact with us using extremely advanced technology. In fact, reality itself could be a computer simulation which we unknowingly inhabit.

Every conceivable argument, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof. Note: This is not the same as being close-minded.

There is, however, a simple answer to this question: God is what it would take to convince an atheist. An omniscient god would know the exact standard of evidence required to convince any atheist of its existence and, being omnipotent, it would also be able to immediately produce this evidence. If it wanted to, a god could conceivably change the brain chemistry of any individual in order to compel them to believe. It could even restructure the entire universe in such a way as to make non-belief impossible.

In short, a god actually proving its own existence is what would convince any atheist of said god’s existence.

In truth, there is nothing complex about this.

God created the Universe, the universe exists, therefore God exists.

But your original point is valid and in my opinion spot on. The anti-theists are merely using an unreasonable standard. If the standard were the 'reasonable doubt' standard common to contests in criminal prosecution, the existence of God would be readily accepted.

Were it the preponderance of evidence standard common to civil contests, the same... only exponentially more so.

That is true because you choose to believe its true.

The same can be said of the atheist, of course.

What is a "reasonable standard" is in the eye of the beholder.

The god-believer looks up at the stars and that's all they need.

The argument for God's existence is ultimately rational, albeit, predicated on the fact of existence itself and the imperatives of human consciousness. All of the atheist arguments against it utterly fail as the latter are inherently contradictory and self-negating . . . or they amount to the superficial pabulum of the unexamined kind as in the above.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Religious intelligence:

And many millions times that have been killed in the name of god/Jesus.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

In truth, there is nothing complex about this.

God created the Universe, the universe exists, therefore God exists.

But your original point is valid and in my opinion spot on. The anti-theists are merely using an unreasonable standard. If the standard were the 'reasonable doubt' standard common to contests in criminal prosecution, the existence of God would be readily accepted.

Were it the preponderance of evidence standard common to civil contests, the same... only exponentially more so.

That is true because you choose to believe its true.

The same can be said of the atheist, of course.

What is a "reasonable standard" is in the eye of the beholder.

The god-believer looks up at the stars and that's all they need.

The argument for God's existence is ultimately rational, albeit, predicated on the fact of existence itself and the imperatives of human consciousness. All of the atheist arguments against it utterly fail as the latter are inherently contradictory and self-negating . . . or they amount to the superficial pabulum of the unexamined kind as in the above.

Again, that is true ONLY because you choose to believe its true.

Believing in the existence of a god, ANY of the various gods, demands the opposite of rational thought. You must put your brain, your ability to reason, on hold.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying you should believe as I do. You are more than welcome to whatever you choose to believe.

I won't preach at you and I expect the same from (editorial) "you".

 

[Luddly Neddite]

What is unreasonable is your implication that Atheists (yes, it is a religion) don't force their beliefs into govt, schools, etc. Have you been asleep for the last 50 years? Virtually ALL of the legal and political regulations in our public institutions regarding religious beliefs have been imposed by Atheists and their supporters.

Nope. Actually, its been the SCOTUS upholding the First Amendment.

Even so, you're more than welcome to pray in govt buildings, schools, public and/or private buildings. There is no place, that I'm aware of, where that is prohibited.

What is prohibited is that others be forced to join or endure. Except, of course, in violation of the First Amendment, religious statuary is indeed in one/some/many public buildings.

Religion belongs in churches. Period.

1. SCOTUS decisions are legal regulation.

2. Exactly who is being "forced to join" what?

3. We all "endure" the religious beliefs of others. Why should there be a First Amendment exception for Atheists?

4. "Period." Does that mean "Don't confuse me with any more facts or logic?"

Yep.
Every time we turn around, some bible thumper is saying they want to force entire classrooms to "pray".
Why? You don't have to endure me on your front porch. You don't have to pay my share of property taxes on my Atheist Clubhouse.
Period means just that - religion belongs in churches. You get special treatment. Why should you be able to force that on others?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

that they are not the highest form of intelligence in the universe. (Impossible.)

Every conceivable argument, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof. Note: This is not the same as being close-minded.

Utter nonsense.

Atheism is easily the stupidest notion ever imagined by man. Its premise doesn’t even get off the ground logically, and atheists routinely make the most incredibly stupid arguments against theism.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/370283-convince-atheists.html#post9614503

Atheists are notoriously bad philosophers, including the likes of Krauss and Hawking.

Prufrock's Lair: A Mountain of Nothin' out of Somethin' or Another

If you want to call me and other atheists "stupid", you should take it to the regular forums.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

What is unreasonable is your implication that Atheists (yes, it is a religion) don't force their beliefs into govt, schools, etc. Have you been asleep for the last 50 years? Virtually ALL of the legal and political regulations in our public institutions regarding religious beliefs have been imposed by Atheists and their supporters.

Nope. Actually, its been the SCOTUS upholding the First Amendment.

Even so, you're more than welcome to pray in govt buildings, schools, public and/or private buildings. There is no place, that I'm aware of, where that is prohibited.

What is prohibited is that others be forced to join or endure. Except, of course, in violation of the First Amendment, religious statuary is indeed in one/some/many public buildings.

Religion belongs in churches. Period.

1. SCOTUS decisions are legal regulation.

2. Exactly who is being "forced to join" what?

3. We all "endure" the religious beliefs of others. Why should there be a First Amendment exception for Atheists?

4. "Period." Does that mean "Don't confuse me with any more facts or logic?"

Atheists aren't being asked to believe in God. They're not being forced to modify their beliefs, in any way. Which is in direct conflict with Atheist demands that others be forced to alter their behavior and otherwise act in ways which conflict with their most closely held principles and ideas.

When Atheists demand that a beam-cross be removed from the WTC memorial, that we not recognize the fundamental principles of nature that sustain a viable culture in our courts and other government functions and that individuals not speak publicly of the importance to discipline one's appetites and desires and focus upon the central force of the universe for guidance and its the wisdom of its intrinsic objectivity.

There's nothing complex about any of this.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

that they are not the highest form of intelligence in the universe. (Impossible.)

Actually, the propensity toward arrogance manifests mostly among theists, and among many Christians in particular.