What would convince you that God doesn't exist?

[abnoxio]

I'm interested what it would take for a Christian, Catholic, etc. to be convinced that God did not exist.
In other words what kind of proof would convince you. The discovery of Jesus's body? Alien invaders? that kind of thing.
Thank you for taking the time to read this.

[trencacloscas]

So it's your business what everyone else believes about religion?

Since this religion was forced upon me since my birthday and Christians insist in telling me how I must live my life and what I have to believe, yes, it is my business to defend myself from religious bonzos.

[Lotan]

So it's your business what everyone else believes about religion?

If they're the ones writing the laws that govern me, yes.

Is Stalin your hero?

No. You are. Please try to stay relevant.

What about philosophy and politics? Those too?

Of course.

Now, before you sidetrack this discussion anymore, please explain why you prefer Western civil law over Sharia civil law and how this view supports your definition of who is or is not a religious fanatic.

[Tilia]

So it's your business what everyone else believes about religion?

If they're the ones writing the laws that govern me, yes.

But if they are not, you are not particularly interested?

[Lotan]

But if they are not, you are not particularly interested?

They can vote.

When you answer my question about Sharia then maybe I'll consider continuing this discussion. Til then it's a waste of my time.
Toodles.

[Tilia]

But if they are not, you are not particularly interested?

They can vote.

Huh? So voters are fanatics?

When you answer my question about Sharia then maybe I'll consider continuing this discussion.

So unless I chase your red herring, you won't deal with the main issue.

Til then it's a waste of my time.

I take it you won't be associating mainstream Christianity with fanaticism in future, then.

[Lotan]

Huh? So voters are fanatics?

OK. I'll play.

This line made more sense when it simply said "Huh?".
People live in societies, therefore our lives are affected by the actions of actions of others. The actions of others are affected by their beliefs, whether they make laws, or support those who do.

So unless I chase your red herring, you won't deal with the main issue.

Red herring? You brought up the idea of civil law as a measure of fanaticism. Sharia is just a perfect example of why that is a bad idea. Now you don't want to talk about it?

I take it you won't be associating mainstream Christianity with fanaticism in future, then.

Now you have to make stuff up? I never said that Tilia. Either show where I did or retract this statement.

[Tilia]

Huh? So voters are fanatics?

OK. I'll play.

This line made more sense when it simply said "Huh?".

I thought the opposite!

People live in societies, therefore our lives are affected by the actions of actions of others. The actions of others are affected by their beliefs, whether they make laws, or support those who do.

Ok, I appreciate that, but voting is a method of personal expression that is generally agreed to be a basic right, and does not represent what most people would call fanaticism. But you presumably call it that when a religious person votes. Now what do you consider to be the fanaticism of a religious voter in terms of current or likely legislation in Western countries?

My 'drawn line' is actual anti-social behaviour, such as physical violence, theft, arson, libel, incitement, interference in trade or freedom of expression, etc., which applies to anyone, religious or not. Those criteria also apply in countries where sharia law applies, though others also apply in those places, which are in effect the legalised application of anti-social behaviour.

[Lotan]

Ok, I appreciate that, but voting is a method of personal expression that is generally agreed to be a basic right, and does not represent what most people would call fanaticism. But you presumably call it that when a religious person votes.

If their vote is based on their religious ideology at the expense of reason, then yes.

Now what do you consider to be the fanaticism of a religious voter in terms of current or likely legislation in Western countries?

Teaching creationism in schools and denying gays the right to marry are two obvious examples.

My 'drawn line' is actual anti-social behaviour, such as physical violence, theft, arson, libel, incitement, interference in trade or freedom of expression, etc., which applies to anyone, religious or not.

We're not too far apart for once, although I would add a few things. I would also agree that one need not be religious to be a "fanatic". I realize that this is the term that you took issue with, but it's definition -filled with mistaken enthusiasm- suits my intent. In any case, fanaticism comes in many shades of gray. A person might be fanatical with regard to a single issue only, or they may be fanatical for a period of time only.

Those criteria also apply in countries where sharia law applies, though others also apply in those places, which are in effect the legalised application of anti-social behaviour.

Exactly. Not only that, but they are the legalised application of anti-social behaviour based on religious ideology. And this is why I told upnorthfan that "I just want to live in a world governed by reason, NOT by religious fanatics, be they Christian, Muslim or whatever."

[Tilia]

Ok, I appreciate that, but voting is a method of personal expression that is generally agreed to be a basic right, and does not represent what most people would call fanaticism. But you presumably call it that when a religious person votes.

If their vote is based on their religious ideology at the expense of reason, then yes.

Now what do you consider to be the fanaticism of a religious voter in terms of current or likely legislation in Western countries?

Teaching creationism in schools

For what reason is that fanaticism?

and denying gays the right to marry are two obvious examples.

What if a non-religious person votes to deny homosexuals the right to marry? Is that permissible? Is it fanaticism?

My 'drawn line' is actual anti-social behaviour, such as physical violence, theft, arson, libel, incitement, interference in trade or freedom of expression, etc., which applies to anyone, religious or not.

We're not too far apart for once, although I would add a few things. I would also agree that one need not be religious to be a "fanatic". I realize that this is the term that you took issue with, but it's definition -filled with mistaken enthusiasm- suits my intent.

But who decides what is mistaken?

[MJB05]

And why gripe about that? What business is it of yours?

It's as much mine as anyone else's. Now can we return to the topic?

Why doesn't Sharia law fit your idea?

I thought the topic was" What would convince you that God doesn't exist?"

When did I switch to the topic about Sharia law?


Anyways back to the actual topic of the thread...

It would take some very drastic to convince me of that because I have many experiences and a lot of evidence that proves to me that God DOES exist. I can't really think of anything off my head...