Paying someone to help my dad out with religion

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

If you were to have evidence that proves a higher and almighty being than humans, you would certainly win a Nobel Prize, wouldn't you? So where is your Nobel Prize?

Provide your evidence here for easy dissection and I will dissect it like the bug it is.

Btw, do you believe in the New Testament?

 

could you specify

 

Rebecca, that's still very very vague and you are treating "evidence" as a subjective term.

 

Ah ha. I thought so. You are a anti-Christian bigot, aren't you? And we all know that bigots are lazy, which is why you didn't bother to search this forum for the proofs I stated, did you?

@miketh2005, you are boring. You bring nothing to this discussion that we have not seen before. You stubbornly tell yourself that you are smarter than all of us, meanwhile on this thread we have easily seen through your bigotry, your spammy URL, your total ignorance of the discussion. You err in thinking that you have a unique view on your bias against religion. You are afraid, very afraid, to search for the proofs I mentioned because your deepest fear is that you are WRONG.

What are your boring arguments against God? That there needs to be irrefutable proof that explains God? You can't even explain how your television works, can you? That the religious documents in the Bible can't be trusted? They were historical documents used for religious purposes. If I took all the early writings about Julius Caesar and made them into a religious text and called my religion "Caesariansim", would that make those documents less historic?

Do you know the proof of the New Testament's accuracy? It has been verified to be historically accurate by other reliable historic sources, therefore it is historically accurate in what is unique. Do you understand the proofs for an historical document? Do you understand how many historical documents mention "Jesus"? Do you understand Entropy and what it is? Can you explain consciousness? Do you understand the scientific theory of creation hierarchy? Do you know the difference between an hypothesis, a theory, and a law? Of course not, and I fully expect you to ignore anything you do not understand.

There are threads on DP discussing the existence of God with hundreds of posts lasting more than a year by very intelligent people on both sides. I expect your arguments to not live up to the arguments put forth by the INTELLIGENT Atheists on this board.

Why haven''t you looked up these arguments on DP? Because you lack something necessary for any intelligent person - CURIOSITY. You are too scared to look them up, aren't you? If fear was music you'd be a symphony.

Go ahead, i dare you to present an argument against God's existence that hasn't already been discussed. Try it and I will link to a DP forum post where it was discussed, long ago, humiliating you and showing you to be the coward that you truly are. Or, you could be a real coward and post something pathetic like "it's not worht my time".

@miketh2005, Go ahead. Amuse us with your ignorance. This thread has already proven that you are as transparent as glass anyway.

 

It's your claim that religion (existence of a deity) has been proven on this forum. I'm saying it hasn't. You don't like my definition of proof, where it is evidence that absolutely establish something as fact. That's fine. But it is interesting you would rather focus on my definition rather than just jump in and explain your own statement. Since you're not very forthcoming, I'll conclude you most likely have very low standards for what you consider proof.


edit: Just read your post above to miketh2005, it looks like I was right on.


@miketh2005 - You're new. Let me explain Corwin's post. He doesn't actually have anything proving existence of a deity. So, instead, he's trying to fluster you with a barrage of personal attacks. Then, he ends the post pretending it's your responsibility to prove it. I have magical fairies living in my garden, prove me wrong!

 

Absolutely not. I never claimed what you wrote above. NEVER!

Rebecca, I'd be happy to discuss anything I wrote, but it's disgustingly dishonest of you to claim I wrote things that I didn't. In any logical argument or proof, words have specific meanings. If you don't understand the words then you make definitional mistakes. How can you debate the issue when you clearly don't understand the terminology of the subject?

I'm explaining my knowledge of miketh2005 's methodology. I'm telling Mike that I know exactly who and what he is because people behave according to patterns. Your pattern, Rebecca, is to subtly drive the discussion off-topic.

And as for who's responsibility, it's miketh2005!!! After all, he made the initial claim, right? So that makes it his responsibility to prove it, doesn't it?

Because the attitude of "this is what i believe, I have no proof but I'm right if you don't prove me wrong" is miketh2005 initial position on this topic. I'm not playing his game, but you seem pliable enough to play his.

 

anyway, Mike forget about the random debating about proof. There's no point into getting into this science vs religion thing. Reason? because both have issues making it tough impossible to prove.
Let's simplify a bit.

In order to fix the problem, there has to be an issue. You said your father is open minded so it sounds to me like you are saying that he's a respectable person. Ask yourself this one question "Is the quality of his life now being negatively affected?.
If the answer is no then you don't need to change a thing.

In DP there are Atheists that really need to change to Christian and Christians who really need to change to Atheist. Not to become right, but because they cannot handle their religion and its turning their life as a negative.

If your Father doesn't have this problem then don't worry about it.

 

>>

>>

Above is your direct answer to miketh2005, claiming there has been actual proof of a G-d's existence on this forum. I think many would define proof as overwhelming evidence that establishes something as a fact. If you don't, again, that's not a problem. You could have just said so a page ago, rather than having your usual temper tantrum, and making personal attacks.

 

Rebecca, what you wrote is this:

I never claimed that.

1. I mentioned that the existence of God has been discussed on this forum. I never made this about religion - never. I never validated religion on this thread.
2. I never claimed that religion equals existence of a deity because it does not. I never even mentioned deity - an anthropomorphic supreme being that arbitrarily makes decisions in the same way a human does. I never made that claim because I don't believe in the concept of a deity.
3. I never claimed that the existence of God has been proven on this forum. I claimed that the existence of God has been DISCUSSED and that there is no argument the OP can bring that has not already been discussed on this forum.

Again, no, I never claimed that. I pointed out that these proofs had been discussed.

My central argument here is that the existence of God has been extensively discussed on this forum and that proofs of God's existence has been discussed. I never claimed in this thread that God's existence has been PROVEN, I claimed that it has been DISCUSSED and that there is no argument that the OP (who seems to have run away in embarrassment) can introduce that has not already been discussed.

Understand?

I think many scientists, counting myself, would say you are wrong again. "overwhelming evidence" is such a vague term it is subject to argument. For example, Inference often satisfies a proof.

 

The problem is that is not right considering that evidence can be added up just as easy as "Justin Bieber said it so there's a +1 there". Proof and evidence are completely different. Proof means without question, its true. As in cars move. Its been seen, proven, in theory 100% makes sense that they can move with the parts, etc.
Evidence is like a scientist suit guy saying that he claims blah, because to him blah makes sense. Evidence is the "possibly" part of everything. If enough people say it I suppose its very possible that its true but really doesn't change it to proof.

 

@Laceygirl,

I agree with "Proof means without question, its true." That's what I've been saying. Also, adding up lots of weak evidence doesn't establish something as fact. So, I agree with your first sentence as well. In your car scenario, I would regard "Its been seen" as one of the overwhelming pieces of evidence that establish something (cars moving) as a fact. (proof).

 

So if you can't see or touch a quark does it means that it doesn't exist ? Seriously evidence can be circumstantial but it's still evidence . The problem with the logical demonstration that God exists is that it's impossible to compute an equation with omnipotence and omniscience in it . Quantum physics has offered us a small glimpse but it's still in it's infancy despite our relentless efforts .

There are people that still refuse to acknowledge obvious facts and prefer to believe in debunked evidence and theories . In order for evidence to become proof the individual that sees it must first accept it as such .

 

I have no issue with the power of mass evidence myself but "THEORY" is where I think is annoying when people consider it as evidence. Imagination and authority status should have no place for evidence.
The deal with God is that he cannot be unproven and can't be proven either. Religion only be an individual and cannot be shown to others. Its just an endless argument with this Atheist, Scientology, and Religion.

Back to my original thought, no matter what you believe if it makes you a better person and not worse then you should keep at it.

 

The mass evidence theory is an analogical argument that "makes sense" , this type of evidence is the most common one we use since time rarely allows us to dissect a problem down to it's finest details . However as I've said a 100% logical solution to this argument is impossible to find at the present time , when mathematics will evolve further then we might have a chance of solving this issue .

 

Its just so regular that the argument that started if the op should convert his dad to atheist or not, ended up in whether god exists or not.

I hardly come to P&R and ever after so long nothing has changed. I dont care if you are atheist or not. Cant you just respect the others perception.

BTW, there are billions who believe in god and are completely sane. Why does the op want his dad to be an atheist.

EDIT:

And this is what i wanted to say in short.

If there was 100% proof, you would have just hated god or pointing out his mistakes. Since there is no complete proof of god,there exists an an important attribute called faith.

 

What's wrong with theory? Theory is when you the hypothesis is proven and predictable. Law is when theory has practical use.

 

The problem with theory is simple. Someone creates an idea and because of where they went to school or how respected they are, it counts as heavy evidence. That's a pretty big flaw. For example:
Some big shot natural museum has announced that dinosaurs get fleas(not normal fleas but over sized fleas). They have evidence of finding a dinosaur with these large fleas engraved. Everyone is astonished in wow.
I come into the announcement and say. "I'm sorry that's a hoax. The museum did that as a hoax. Its completely untrue.

Everyone went nuts. They got all mad and said "who are you?". I said I own a popular dinosaur information site. and they said "Then what do you know. Do you know that this is a fact from one of the most professional museum official".
I said "regardless of who they are modern day birds and reptiles are not known the carry fleas. They carry MITES. Its a completely different species. Since dinosaurs are juggled between reptiles and brids(with feathers) then its not possible. There are a few rare species which were known to have fur, but not the species that they found the "fleas" on. They lied because they are looking for publicity.
As a result they modified the article to flea-like insect and ip banned me.
Conclusion of the story?
Most of the time people who present a theory are just making things up and use their reputation as evidence that they are telling the truth.

 

@Laceygirl, I agree with your post. Problem you discussed is people misusing the word "theory" when they really mean "hypothesis".

I would suggest that in the situation you found yourself in, that you do not respond with "I own a popular dinosaur information site." May I suggest "I have been studying dinosaurs for years and publish my findings and analysis on my popular dinosaur information website."

 

Hello there Sir. I am a Christian and I have alot of experience helping someone snap out of the JW spell.

There is a very simple method that will make them snap out of it..

Basically, you just have to ask them to explain some simple facts. Make it seem like you are generally interested in the answer (I actually am genuinely interested in the answer they give to this) and hopefully, as they try to work out the answer, they will see the hypocrisy themselves.

Ask them stuff like this..

"I've seen some "Christian" ministries, such as Harold Camping's ministry, who have predicted the end of the world. Harold Camping predicted that the the end would come on May 21st 2011... But it didn't... Afterwards, he didn't admit that he was wrong about it...... Do you think I should still follow his ministry? If he makes any new predictions, should I trust them? Afterall he did say he was annointed..."

Hopefully, your JW father will say "No", and if you can, ask him why... He will hopefully say something like, "This Harold Camping guy is obviously a false prophet- he proved it by making a false prophecy. Why would you trust someone who did that?"

If he doesn't go into detail like that, but he just says "You shouldn't follow him" then you can take the initiative and say "Yeah, you're right, afterall he made a false prophecy even though the Bible says "no man knows the day nor the hour."

Then you can simply bring up this, "How about the Jehovah's Witnesses then? They predicted the end of the world many times and it did not come to pass.

http://www.cftf.com/booklets/jwslisten/prophecies.htm

There's a list of some of them.

Ask him why they taught, until about 2008, that the end would come within the last generation of people from WW1.

The typical answer from a JW is "The light shines brighter" meaning that their wisdom grows over time.. If this is true, then ANYTHING they believe now might not be true.

If he doesn't listen upon hearing about the false prophecies, then not much will help I'm afraid.

 

Whether you believe or not .......think about this ......what do you have to look forward to after death? we have salvation, and a promising life through Jesus Christ. You have nothing .............. that's the least to say. What if your right?? what if there is no God.... then what's next? ....you die and that's it? Now what if there is God........and your wrong for not believing... the punishment would be pretty severe. I'd rather believe and be saved, than wrong and be condemned. It's a win win for me. For you, unless you change the way your thinking, there's nothing?