How to disprove God to a believer? (no really)...

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Frankenstein's monster was a take-off on the Jewish "Golem of Prague". Dracula, with his archetypal Jewish features and his habit of drinking blood, is a take-off on the antisemitic Blood Libel. As for Jewish werewolves,

read THIS.

Of course, every culture has its demons and monsters. The Jews have the distinction of being CONSIDERED monsters by a large portion of mankind, which may explain their disproportionate representation in bête noire horror films. Besides that, the Jews have had 2000 years of experience, having to deal with real-life monsters such as Hitler, Arafat and Khameini.

Leaving off the subject of monsters, which I posted about in dark humor, I should note here that the Jewish people are themselves the greatest proof that the God of Israel exists, and that He is greater than all other gods. Every culture has had its own gods; and those gods have nearly all deserted them. Emperor Hirohito had to renounce his divinity after WWII, to the dismay and disillusionment of his subjects. American Indian tribes, and other peoples (including the Chinese and Indians), found their gods unable to save them from Christian colonialism. The Jews, on the other hand, spent 1900 years in exile from their homeland, clinging tenaciously to a promise by their God that He would restore their fortunes; and they were not disappointed in their hope. Today, the ungodly world seems determined to snuff out that hope by destroying Israel -- and, presumably, their God. We'll see how the contest pans out (Zechariah 14). My money is on the Jews and their God.

Shalom shalom :balloons:
​

Well you are sort of ignoring Hinduism and it still flourishes, and despite all attempts, followers of Zoroaster are still around. You also have Buddhism and the Tao which is still followed.

I think it has a lot more to do with cultural identity than anything else. Judaism is just as much of a culture as it is a religion. It also helps I think that Christianity and Islam claim to follow the same God.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

Well you are sort of ignoring Hinduism and it still flourishes, and despite all attempts, followers of Zoroaster are still around. You also have Buddhism and the Tao which is still followed.

I think it has a lot more to do with cultural identity than anything else. Judaism is just as much of a culture as it is a religion. It also helps I think that Christianity and Islam claim to follow the same God.

I am not ignoring them; and you will note that you have been able to list just four religions, out of thousands that have bitten the dust.

Between Christianity and Islam, the God of Israel has clearly triumphed in the world today over the others. Taoism is trying to make a comeback in China, but it has stiff competition from the underground church there. Hinduism survives in India, but has been unable to assert itself as the state religion. The governing system there is Secularism, introduced by the British. Buddhism has never been defeated in Bhutan, but that insignificant country is under Indian protection. Islam survives, having been undefeated in Turkey and Saudi Arabia. There is an obvious contest today between Islam and Judaeo-Christianity; but not that both are Abrahamic religions.

Gottato.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I am not ignoring them; and you will note that you have been able to list just four religions, out of thousands that have bitten the dust.

Between Christianity and Islam, the God of Israel has clearly triumphed in the world today over the others. Taoism is trying to make a comeback in China, but it has stiff competition from the underground church there. Hinduism survives in India, but has been unable to assert itself as the state religion. The governing system there is Secularism, introduced by the British. Buddhism has never been defeated in Bhutan, but that insignificant country is under Indian protection. Islam survives, having been undefeated in Turkey and Saudi Arabia. There is an obvious contest today between Islam and Judaeo-Christianity; but not that both are Abrahamic religions.

Gottato.

Well that's what I point about culture, but there is also confuscionism (Sp), which I believe to this day plays a large role in the Chinese culture in regards to how to work, how to interact with your superiors. Hinduism as well is very strongly cultural, even if not a state religion, you'll find even Hindu's who consider themselves atheist (rare I suppose) . I would argue that Christianity and Islam worship the God of Israel in name only, but it's not the same God. But I think that once you have the religion ingrained into your culture, the only way for it to be defeated is by the active destruction of that culture. (sorry my responses are so short, i'm at work, so i'm sorta speed reading).

 

[BlandOatmeal]

Well that's what I point about culture, but there is also confuscionism (Sp), which I believe to this day plays a large role in the Chinese culture in regards to how to work, how to interact with your superiors. Hinduism as well is very strongly cultural, even if not a state religion, you'll find even Hindu's who consider themselves atheist (rare I suppose) . I would argue that Christianity and Islam worship the God of Israel in name only, but it's not the same God. But I think that once you have the religion ingrained into your culture, the only way for it to be defeated is by the active destruction of that culture. (sorry my responses are so short, i'm at work, so i'm sorta speed reading).

You do like to argue, don't you. If I agreed with you, I'll bet you would take the opposite opinion.

It's the wee hours in Oz. Get some sleep.

Shalom shalom.

 

[Willamena]

I am not ignoring them; and you will note that you have been able to list just four religions, out of thousands that have bitten the dust.

"Hinduism" is thousands of religions under a blanket term. It also includes variations of atheism (no gods).

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I am not ignoring them; and you will note that you have been able to list just four religions, out of thousands that have bitten the dust.

This is the typical arrogance of the strident Abrahamic. "Bitten the dust"? You really think that's all that needs to be said?

"Bitten the dust"? Try centuries of genocide (mostly cultural but in many cases, physical), brutality, terrorism, cruelty, threats, imperialism, etc. carried out on the indigenous peoples of the world, their customs and beliefs by Bible and Qur'an toting imperialist murderers. The peoples of the world had their ancestral belief systems destroyed, exterminated and suppressed by their Christian and Muslim conquerors. This process continues with the efforts of "missionaries" to con and foist their imperialist religion on the remaining tribal peoples of the earth.

But the old Gods are not "dead". Their followers just had to wait many centuries before the oppressive boot of the church lifted off their necks enough for them to be able to worship openly. So we have the Pagan revival of various indigenous pantheons from places like Western and Eastern Europe, Egypt, Africa, Mesoamerica, North American Natives, the Middle and Near East and so on. In some places, they're still waiting for the oppression of the Abrahamics to lift enough to have the freedom to worship the Gods of their ancestors or any other Gods.

However, there are some cases where the Abrahamics were not able to completely wipe out the indigenous religion of those they conquered, such as the Mari people of Russia, who still worship in their ancestral ways:
[youtube]E1qdU1JnSpc[/youtube]
Mari people - Europe's last pagans - YouTube

 

[BlandOatmeal]

This is the typical arrogance of the strident Abrahamic. "Bitten the dust"? You really think that's all that needs to be said?

That's all I care to say. Your username is cute.

 

[s2a]

Various polls worldwide have showed that belief in God is a majority opinion. Europe and its colonies, and the former Communist Bloc are exceptions, along with Japan.

Any of those polls conducted upon any scientific basis or foundation?

Even allowing that polls may...within an elective democracy, as in our most recently elected leaders within a representative republic to NOT ONLY represent their most immediate constituents alone, but to actually uphold the longer term interests of a NATION as a whole...

... just a reminder that all collective representatives are charged with exhibiting resident wisdom with every vote cast, preserving the entirety of the foundations of Constitutional government...


>>> not just reelection

If the resident "mob" again approves of lynchings of any of impolitic folks or color, religion, national origins, or just silly white peeps... are we to endorse predictions and hate as policy or progress?

 

[s2a]

btw, I would invite any and all contributors here to remain on topic to the OP, and take your own petty quarrels to another thread, ty

 

[Monk Of Reason]

That would almost seem genuine, except, you know...
the above

?

You may have inadvertently misread or willfully misrepresented my initial post in this thread then, which was my own to put forth… just saying… (see post #1 again
,if you might).

I may have. You mean from the perspective of a theist and their "smoking gun" proposition? I was aware of it but I felt like posting my thoughts on the matter. If there is another discrepancy then it was unintnetional.

I’ll second that… oh wait, I already have…

Good?

Indeed, human nature front and center...warts and all...

indeed.

Is that an excuse, remonstrance, or just kinda sad?

More of a conclusion. Take what you will.

Are you of the position that no one is beyond simple answers of further examinations/experiments... or complete disproofs?

I am not sure what you mean by this statement. I think there are some people who will not accept answers no matter how much evidence is behind them if it goes againt what they "believe". Almost all remaining religions (at least the popoular ones) have built in mechanisms that allow a believer to make up for any differences between their precieved reality and what they wish they would be. The "to test our faith" clause if you will.

But not all answers are simple.

 

[The Wizard]

Well, alrighty then. In celebration/recognition of attaining my 100th-plus post within REF (woo-hoo!), it's time to kick off another topical thread.
[Note to mods: I am unsure as to whether this topic is submitted under the proper forum heading, so I defer to your guidance as to it's proper placement. ;-)]

In the now degraded (and more or less defunct) thread entitled "How to prove God to an atheist (no really)" [ How to prove God to an atheist (no, really)... (Jesus Christ, ritual) - Religious Education Forum ]; I initially offered up (by enumerated example and specified means) what I would accept as incontrovertible and undeniable evidentiary proof of the existence of a supernatural deity that would, in effect, make me a "true believer" and "convert".

Perhaps now is the opportunity for believers (adherents of deistic religious beliefs) to cite any evidentiary examples (as undeniable and incontrovertible) they can offer that would, in effect, "disprove" the "existence" of their professed deity - and would result in their "un-conversion" to "unbelief" (or non-acceptance of claims) of any/all supernatural god(s).

To my knowledge, this is not some "trick question" that pre-supposes some "correct" (or final/ultimate) "trick answer". Obviously, from my perspective as an atheist, there is no compelling evidence to suggest (beyond a reasonable doubt) that any supernatural being/entity, "force", or otherwise ordained supernaturalistic course/purpose/cycle, etc. is evidentially "existent" or "real". I consider the extant "evidence" alone sufficient to draw the self-assured conclusion that all claims to supernatural cause/effect phenomena are, well..."unbelievable".

It is well documented and accepted that believers are prone to "crises of faith" (even Mother Teresa had her moments), but that differs from abject rejections of all religious claims tendered as immutable truths. One may reject a certain religion's tenants, or dogma, or political ideology...but typically, a belief is retained (or at least, a "sense") that some supernatural deity is "real", or existent in some shape, form, or fashion (or at the very least, an "unproven possibility").

But is there any "evidence" (beyond that which is already available) that would persuade you as a "believer" that all claims of supernatural deities are bunk? If so, please offer such prospective "disproofs".
Would discovery of alien life forms (not of this Earth) do the trick?
How about "proof" of UFO's (essentially the same thing)?
Is there some element of cosmology; mathematics; elemental, particle, or theoretical physics; chemistry (akin to "proof" that "life" can spark or originate from otherwise inorganic compounds); or biology (or evolution), or some other "find" or "discovery" (either scientific or even philosophical) that would, in fact, lend you to conclude that all claims to deities are unfounded/unmerited, or certifiably "disproved"?

Faith (religious) is defined in Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary thusly:
"Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true
(Phil. 1:27; 2 Thess. 2:13). Its primary idea is trust. A thing is true, and
therefore worthy of trust. It admits of many degrees up to full assurance of
faith, in accordance with the evidence on which it rests."

If the description/definition above has it's own merited "truth" itself, then certainly the converse, or (otherwise) the absence of "faith" would demand similar considerations in determining a satisfying and self-conclusive "truth" of a "disproof" of supernatural deities.

Believers have asked me many times over the years, "What would it take (for) you to believe?". Well, in the thread referenced above, my earnest answer is tendered in reply. Now, the converse question is put to believers for similar consideration and honest reply.

What say you?

What say me? Ok... So, after all that. You might want to just ask yourself why someone would bother for proof and evidence towards something that belongs to a religion or belief system in the first place?

it's called, "a belief" for a reason....imo.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

That's all I care to say. Your username is cute.

You were better off not replying.

 

[s2a]

What say me? Ok... So, after all that. You might want to just ask yourself why someone would bother for proof and evidence towards something that belongs to a religion or belief system in the first place?

it's called, "a belief" for a reason....imo.

It may be that that sound of a high speed fighter jet whooshing past your head has mysteriously eluded you for numerous reasons, and I'm no doctor...

...but I can (as simple matter of kindness) suggest you re-read the OP in total...

The "offer" was presented solely to those of a professed and engaged "faith-based"
belief.

If you are not of such ilk, then you are off the hook, and your commentary, while unnecessarily interjected, is simply moot.

ty

 

[s2a]

How to disprove God to a believer? (no really)... Well, alrighty then. In celebration/recognition of attaining my 100th-plus post within REF (woo-hoo!), it's time to kick off another topical thread.
[Note to mods: I am unsure as to whether this topic is submitted under the proper forum heading, so I defer to your guidance as to it's proper placement. ;-)]

In the now degraded (and more or less defunct) thread entitled "How to prove God to an atheist (no really)" [ How to prove God to an atheist (no, really)... ]; I initially offered up (by enumerated example and specified means) what I would accept as incontrovertible and undeniable evidentiary proof of the existence of a supernatural deity that would, in effect, make me a "true believer" and "convert".

Perhaps now is the opportunity for believers (adherents of deistic religious beliefs) to cite any evidentiary examples (as undeniable and incontrovertible) they can offer that would, in effect, "disprove" the "existence" of their professed deity - and would result in their "un-conversion" to "unbelief" (or non-acceptance of claims) of any/all supernatural god(s).

To my knowledge, this is not some "trick question" that pre-supposes some "correct" (or final/ultimate) "trick answer". Obviously, from my perspective as an atheist, there is no compelling evidence to suggest (beyond a reasonable doubt) that any supernatural being/entity, "force", or otherwise ordained supernaturalistic course/purpose/cycle, etc. is evidentially "existent" or "real". I consider the extant "evidence" alone sufficient to draw the self-assured conclusion that all claims to supernatural cause/effect phenomena are, well..."unbelievable".

It is well documented and accepted that believers are prone to "crises of faith" (even Mother Teresa had her moments), but that differs from abject rejections of all religious claims tendered as immutable truths. One may reject a certain religion's tenants, or dogma, or political ideology...but typically, a belief is retained (or at least, a "sense") that some supernatural deity is "real", or existent in some shape, form, or fashion (or at the very least, an "unproven possibility").

But is there any "evidence" (beyond that which is already available) that would persuade you as a "believer" that all claims of supernatural deities are bunk? If so, please offer such prospective "disproofs".
Would discovery of alien life forms (not of this Earth) do the trick?
How about "proof" of UFO's (essentially the same thing)?
Is there some element of cosmology; mathematics; elemental, particle, or theoretical physics; chemistry (akin to "proof" that "life" can spark or originate from otherwise inorganic compounds); or biology (or evolution), or some other "find" or "discovery" (either scientific or even philosophical) that would, in fact, lend you to conclude that all claims to deities are unfounded/unmerited, or certifiably "disproved"?

Faith (religious) is defined in Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary thusly:
"Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true
(Phil. 1:27; 2 Thess. 2:13). Its primary idea is trust. A thing is true, and
therefore worthy of trust. It admits of many degrees up to full assurance of
faith, in accordance with the evidence on which it rests."

If the description/definition above has it's own merited "truth" itself, then certainly the converse, or (otherwise) the absence of "faith" would demand similar considerations in determining a satisfying and self-conclusive "truth" of a "disproof" of supernatural deities.

Believers have asked me many times over the years, "What would it take (for) you to believe?". Well, in the thread referenced above, my earnest answer is tendered in reply. Now, the converse question is put to believers for similar consideration and honest reply.

What say you?

Addendum c.2013:

Well, numero uno, It was I that instigated this thread, so I alone bear the responsibly or reposting the OP, in it's unedited entirety, AGAIN...and TO BE CLEAR (for the sight and hearing impaired), what the ACTUAL OP ASKS and REQUESTS of respondents...

*sigh*

It remains a short read... really

It is not a "trick question"

It's really not.

But all the BS and efforts to distract, project, or otherwise attempt to alter any focus but upon the OP itself is an utter waste of anyone's time to glean any insight whatsoever...

Again...What do you as a "believer" require as concrete and otherwise irrefutable evidence of fact that your "God" is not..."god?"

Anything?

 

[The Wizard]

Well, alrighty then. In celebration/recognition of attaining my 100th-plus post within REF (woo-hoo!), it's time to kick off another topical thread.
[Note to mods: I am unsure as to whether this topic is submitted under the proper forum heading, so I defer to your guidance as to it's proper placement. ;-)]


In the now degraded (and more or less defunct) thread entitled "How to prove God to an atheist (no really)" [ How to prove God to an atheist (no, really)... (Jesus Christ, ritual) - Religious Education Forum ]; I initially offered up (by enumerated example and specified means) what I would accept as incontrovertible and undeniable evidentiary proof of the existence of a supernatural deity that would, in effect, make me a "true believer" and "convert".

See, its right above. A contradiction of the meaning and difference of knowledge and belief. With "incontrovertible" or "undeniable evidentiary proof" a person becomes a "knower" and not just "a believer"...

Perhaps now is the opportunity for believers (adherents of deistic religious beliefs) to cite any evidentiary examples (as undeniable and incontrovertible) they can offer that would, in effect, "disprove" the "existence" of their professed deity - and would result in their "un-conversion" to "unbelief" (or non-acceptance of claims) of any/all supernatural god(s).

Same flaw in logic above. Thousands of posts like this... Might as well be in a cartoon...

To my knowledge, this is not some "trick question" that pre-supposes some "correct" (or final/ultimate) "trick answer". Obviously, from my perspective as an atheist, there is no compelling evidence to suggest (beyond a reasonable doubt) that any supernatural being/entity, "force", or otherwise ordained supernaturalistic course/purpose/cycle, etc. is evidentially "existent" or "real". I consider the extant "evidence" alone sufficient to draw the self-assured conclusion that all claims to supernatural cause/effect phenomena are, well..."unbelievable".

All of that supernatural stuff is actually "believable" or belonging to the area of belief to most.... and perhaps "unbelievable" for yourself. If you require evidence for beliefs then you will have no belief of anything in the end... there will be no reason to believe in anything, period. Unfortunately, that mode of reasoning is not rational and makes no sense in the first place...

It is well documented and accepted that believers are prone to "crises of faith" (even Mother Teresa had her moments), but that differs from abject rejections of all religious claims tendered as immutable truths. One may reject a certain religion's tenants, or dogma, or political ideology...but typically, a belief is retained (or at least, a "sense") that some supernatural deity is "real", or existent in some shape, form, or fashion (or at the very least, an "unproven possibility").

Of course...That is what beliefs are all about. Such things are just as real and true as a rock, a tree, the air... not in the measurable world, but in the world of belief (in the inner world) and they are supposed to be because if not then why bother believing in anything? "Unproven possibility" is not a "belief." It simply means to not disregard as impossible, to stay open and consider and whatnot. "To believe" requires an actual mental action....not just a pondering over something.

But is there any "evidence" (beyond that which is already available) that would persuade you as a "believer" that all claims of supernatural deities are bunk? If so, please offer such prospective "disproofs".
Would discovery of alien life forms (not of this Earth) do the trick?
How about "proof" of UFO's (essentially the same thing)?
Is there some element of cosmology; mathematics; elemental, particle, or theoretical physics; chemistry (akin to "proof" that "life" can spark or originate from otherwise inorganic compounds); or biology (or evolution), or some other "find" or "discovery" (either scientific or even philosophical) that would, in fact, lend you to conclude that all claims to deities are unfounded/unmerited, or certifiably "disproved"?

And same problem above. Are you asking "believers" or "knowers"? It makes no sense to ask a "believer" about "evidence." Whoever got that crazy ball of contradiction going was a genius of spreading contradiction for arrogants who spend their entire existence naval gazing and talking in circles..

Faith (religious) is defined in Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary thusly:
"Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true
(Phil. 1:27; 2 Thess. 2:13). Its primary idea is trust. A thing is true, and
therefore worthy of trust. It admits of many degrees up to full assurance of
faith, in accordance with the evidence on which it rests."

If the description/definition above has it's own merited "truth" itself, then certainly the converse, or (otherwise) the absence of "faith" would demand similar considerations in determining a satisfying and self-conclusive "truth" of a "disproof" of supernatural deities.

Believers have asked me many times over the years, "What would it take (for) you to believe?". Well, in the thread referenced above, my earnest answer is tendered in reply. Now, the converse question is put to believers for similar consideration and honest reply.

What say you?

I'm just trying to understand what you're talking about a little bit better... I can't reply if the question or discussion is not logically sound..

 

[BlandOatmeal]

...Again...What do you as a "believer" require as concrete and otherwise irrefutable evidence of fact that your "God" is not..."god?"

Anything?

That seems to be a fair enough question. I will answer it the best I can.

When I was 25, I was lost in the forest and thought I would die. I therefore got into a Yoga position, and focussed on my heartbeat. As long as I heard it beating, I reckoned I was alive.

Having thus quieted myself, I proceeded to talk with God. It was pitch black outside, overcast and with no moon, so it didn't matter whether my eyes were opened or closed. I told God, "Well, here I am. I'm still alive. When my heart stops beating, I guess I'll be dead"

Suddenly, a great peace came over me, and I felt warm (I hadn't before, but had been shivering). Then I asked God (Whom I perceived as being in front of me) "Is that you, Jesus?" As soon as I had said that, I felt a presence behind me and a hand on my left shoulder. I was afraid to look at my shoulder, for fear that I would actually see a hand.

With that, I was convinced that the God of the Bible was God. I began singing Christian songs that I had heard some eight months previously but had never sung since, and then I fell asleep on my guitar case. After several hours, the day began to dawn and I could find my way back to my camp.

If you wanted to convince me that there is no God, I guess you would have to begin by somehow undoing that experience.

 

[s2a]

See, its right above. A contradiction of the meaning and difference of knowledge and belief. With "incontrovertible" or "undeniable evidentiary proof" a person becomes a "knower" and not just "a believer"...



Same flaw in logic above. Thousands of posts like this... Might as well be in a cartoon...



All of that supernatural stuff is actually "believable" or belonging to the area of belief to most.... and perhaps "unbelievable" for yourself. If you require evidence for beliefs then you will have no belief of anything in the end... there will be no reason to believe in anything, period. Unfortunately, that mode of reasoning is not rational and makes no sense in the first place...



Of course...That is what beliefs are all about. Such things are just as real and true as a rock, a tree, the air... not in the measurable world, but in the world of belief (in the inner world) and they are supposed to be because if not then why bother believing in anything? "Unproven possibility" is not a "belief." It simply means to not disregard as impossible, to stay open and consider and whatnot. "To believe" requires an actual mental action....not just a pondering over something.



And same problem above. Are you asking "believers" or "knowers"? It makes no sense to ask a "believer" about "evidence." Whoever got that crazy ball of contradiction going was a genius of spreading contradiction for arrogants who spend their entire existence naval gazing and talking in circles..

I'm just trying to understand what you're talking about a little bit better... I can't reply if the question or discussion is not logically sound..

The question is not "unsound".

I simply provided the reflexive inquiry as posed to the "unbeliever"..."What would it take for you to believe?"

Answer provided in referenced thread above "http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/16588-how-prove-god-atheist-no-really.html"

I have lent my answer, and you offer your version of how "faith" either can not/will not/should not bother to do so...

Ok.

Your argument is noted for what it is. TY.

I could ask the simple question again, but I predict similar efforts on your part to simply dodge and evade any earnest answer beyond, "nothing"... and that's ok too.

*yawn*

Anyone else?

 

[s2a]

That seems to be a fair enough question. I will answer it the best I can.

*anecdote*

If you wanted to convince me that there is no God, I guess you would have to begin by somehow undoing that experience.

You will note that was not the question at hand, though ty for sharing...

Consider the reflexive...

"What evidence/circumstance would you require to disavow your own faith-based beliefs?"

Anything come to mind?

 

[Sir Doom]

Addendum c.2013:

Well, numero uno, It was I that instigated this thread, so I alone bear the responsibly or reposting the OP, in it's unedited entirety, AGAIN...and TO BE CLEAR (for the sight and hearing impaired), what the ACTUAL OP ASKS and REQUESTS of respondents...

*sigh*

It remains a short read... really

It is not a "trick question"

It's really not.

But all the BS and efforts to distract, project, or otherwise attempt to alter any focus but upon the OP itself is an utter waste of anyone's time to glean any insight whatsoever...

Again...What do you as a "believer" require as concrete and otherwise irrefutable evidence of fact that your "God" is not..."god?"

Anything?

And I thought you said it wasn't about me...

Oh well...

 

[s2a]

And I thought you said it wasn't about me...

Oh well...

...and it still is not...

*crickets*