₦airaland Forum

kingxsamz:
I did not admit. I told you I wouldn't mind answering you with that particular response if that were to be what I had in mind, because you thought asking me that question would make me deflect or abandon the argument.
I haven't answered your question, remember?

lol, what is this?

kingxsamz:
She's clearly fine with justifying all sorts of acts simply because her religious text permits it.
She would defend the indefensible simply because of her religion.

That's definitely not what they said

kingxsamz:
Chai!
The things religion makes us say and do.

I don't see how it relates to religion if even those who don't believe will also do it

Edit: Casual fallacy

kingxsamz:
So is it right to rape and kill children depending on the scenario? Answer.

I'll bite. It isn't

Edit: I'd like to say that by adding depending on the scenario you automatically make the question have more than one answer, and that doing so without defining said scenario stops you from streamlining your answer

jasminer:
Really? Should I list war crimes china committed? Google is your friend. Answer my questions first

Keep up the good fight, you have done what I cannot do, Kudos!!

When faced with the same logic they cannot answer.

uche40:
Nice to see you again dear. I trust you are doing good.

I am. You?

uche40:
I already had this idea in mind. That's why if you take a quick stroll to my first couple of posts on this thread, you'll notice that when I was speaking to God's intolerance, it was specifically in context of his personality and his actions in the Old Testament, including the Pentateuch (first five books written by Moses). I brought up Sodom and Gomorrah, The Flood of Genesis, and even Uzzah and the Ark of the Covenant, among many others. God's behavior and actions in a lot of stories from the Old Testament is the very definition of being unable or unwilling to endure or grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters.

Of course, our capacity for endurance has a limit. Tolerance lies on a continuum, and my understanding of God's tolerance levels -- based on the Bible -- is that it leans more towards the negative end of the continuum.

I'd first like to say, I hope we agree that the longer you can take something, the more tolerant you are (I think this is what you meant by tolerance lies on a continuum, correct me if I'm wrong)

After this, the problem we face is that we don't know exactly how long these things went on (with your cited examples as a basis, and exception of Uzzah, I don't think I can handle that one). The Bible is a collection of subjective recollections of events, so we only know as much as the writer wrote. We don't know for how long Sodom and Gomorrah existed before they were destroyed.

For the flood, the world had existed for 1656 years before it was wiped out, an incredibly long time (albeit from the perspective of man)

I hope I committed no fallacies, this argument doesn't seem all that strong to me, but I hope I got my message across.

uche40:
The Bible God is insistent on people taking his way or the highway. He never ever comes to the acceptance of people doing things contrary to his will. They will have to succumb eventually -- no matter how long it takes -- or they will face destruction. God may bide his time, waiting for people to repent, but it doesn't exactly indicate tolerance, which colloquially translates as "live and let live"

I think the better way of viewing it, is that His way is the way that works. Nature has a way of finding the best solution to a problem (or at the very least the one that works). It doesn't matter what the organism started out as, the theory of evolution states that they will become more complex and have more specialized organs.

It is either you evolve to be more complex or you die out, because others do better than you. As an omniscient being, God is able to see this best path, that way that all other ways eventually lead into and advice the man who listens accordingly.

So it is true that it is either His way or no way, because all ways lead to His way.

Even evolution talks about it. Creatures who refuse to evolve die out.

(I don't think I did a good job with this arguments, any idea on how I can do better. Thanks in advance)

uche40:
Radiate boundless love for the entire world- above, below, and across- unhindered, without ill will, without enmity.
- Guatama Buddha

Since you think quoting religious texts to non-believers of that religion will somehow convince them that you are right, then I'm obligated to quote from a religion you don't believe in as well to convince you that you are wrong.

While this is very funny, it actually is in line with what Jesus said (and the Bible)

Love your neighbor as yourself
- Jesus

Just pointing out, I get your point though

jasminer:
Afterall even christian soldiers will make heaven if they are good christians after all the killings they carried out.

I just want to focus on this. Even David, the apple of God's eyes killed people. But outside of battle David was a good man who sought God's heart, which is the main thing.

Edit: Even David's killings weren't without consequences. David wanted to build the temple but God did not allow him to because he had killed.

uche40:
Please show me the love, joy and peace in 1) the mistreatment and ostracizing of former Jehovah Witness members, 2) governing your members through autocracy and coercion, 3) denying your members proper healthcare even in life threatening situations, 4) covering up cases of sexual abuse within your organization etc.

Even among the various Christian Denominations, the Witnesses are viewed as extremists.

Before I get into it, I'd like to apologise on behalf of all Christians for the behaviour of the few. It takes effort try and argue logically, and not everyone is as conversant with it as you.

Now my attempt

uche40:
intolerance
/ɪnˈtɒl(ə)r(ə)ns,ɪnˈtɒl(ə)rəns/

noun
1. unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behaviour that differ from one's own.
"a struggle against religious intolerance"
https://languages.oup.com/google-dictionary-en/

So I looked up the definition of the word "accept"

to believe that something is true:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/accept

(I choose this because I didn't think the other definitions fit the usage in the sentence.)

Looking at things like this, it becomes clear why God is intolerant following the above definition (and the belief that God is omniscient)

As an omniscient God, he of course knows what is empirically true, so why should he accept (believe to be true) a belief that is not?

So on this point, I have to agree with you, God is intolerant, because He knows What is actually true.

However going with another definition of intolerant

1 : unable or unwilling to endure
2 a : unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intolerant

We can just as equally see that, yes, God is not intolerant. If not I'm sure you would have already died for all this (supposed) blasphemy, or would not even be able to blaspheme. Or that anyone would be able to go against him for so long (because endurance should have a limit shouldn't it?)

kingxsamz:
Exodus 10:16-17 shows he was remorseful and acknowledged he had sinned, only for his heart to be hardened, yet again.
Exodus 10:1 shows the Christian god hardened his heart on purpose so he could have a reason to flex his muscles.

Yes, I see. I am wrong, you are right.

kingxsamz:
lol, where did I mention that I have a problem with it?

Then why bring it up as a point of argument, we both have no problem with it so bringing it up was pointless.

Any way, I see that it was foolish of me to argue with you. You seem to read around everything I type in response, so you're not really looking for answers just trouble.

I appreciate your enlightening words, I apologise. I am foolish but allow me to exist in my foolishness.

kingxsamz:
And what is that supposed to mean?

So basically, since we are talking about the Bible, you need to back up what you're saying with scriptures

kingxsamz:
The story about the order to kill children and babies didn't even have anything to do with Moses.
See? There's so much murdering of children that one can point several places of its occurrence in the bible.
Now I'm telling you this, the bible clearly stated that the Christian god asked that children and babies be killed. What do you have to say about that?

You didn't provide me any basis for this.

You should cite several examples along with such statements

kingxsamz:
He was remorseful and acknowledged that he had sinned and the verse clearly stated that his heart was hardened so as to prevent him from setting them free.

Link me to this bible verse please, let me also know what you know.

kingxsamz:
_ Yes I'll do my best to stop them, why not? Maybe not kill but anyway possible.

So what problem do you have with what God did?

kingxsamz:
Your colleague up there said this, you should be asking him or her that question. Or did they lie about what the Bible said?


This was what your colleague also said. Are they lying? If the Christian god can respect people's choice to enslave other people, then he can also respect people's choice to rape and kill.
Abi no be so?
Lol, I'm loving the contradictions.

In the Christian faith, we believe that God talks to and listens to everybody. We may not know how many people the people of Sodom and Gomorrah raped and killed, but we know it was a lot because it seemed to be the norm in the city.

Now if the family members of the people who were raped and killed asks God to take care of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, whose request do you think God will answer?

And also, the fact that they could rape and kill means God respected their decision to do so, but they could not hide from the resentment of God know how many people. Majority of the people in the area wished them dead and it was allowed by God.

I see no contradiction, do you?

kingxsamz:
You should have stopped here then instead of quoting me. Maybe when you keep emotions and the urge to defend your beliefs aside then you can start seeing the "intelligence and facts".

With the basis of all our facts here being the bible after all these are bible stories, it seems that you are the one without facts.

kingxsamz:
Wasn't Moses this god's messenger?
Where in that story did the Christian god condemn Moses for his utterance? Why overlook it? And even if we want to excuse that part and and say he didn't know, how about the part where he specifically asked men to murder children and babies?
How about that?

Since when did the master and the messenger become confused?

What the master says and what the servant does are 2 different things.

The order to kill all the women and children was by Moses, mind you and not God. You keep overlooking that.

kingxsamz:
...him stubborn? Why didn't he respect the decision of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah? You no even sabi the book wey you dey read sef.

When was it explicitly stated that Pharaoh wanted to release the children of Israel?

Where is your proof?

As for Sodom and Gomorrah, they were a scourge on humanity, if God hadn't done it, somebody else would have.

They were unrepentantly evil. Imagine if someone entered your town for the first time and the first thing the whole town wants to do is have sex with them, and it was audibly announced.

(Edit:
https://biblehub.com/genesis/19-5.htm

Read down to 10)

In your own words

If you knew someone would always kill or rape anyone he immediately met, would you kill him?
Answer me directly

kingxsamz:
You keep avoiding my points.
The issue isn't about what was the norm back then, the issue is about this god giving men instructions to slaughter women who have been disvirgined and keeping those who are virgins for themselves.
You do know that quite a large number of little girls were married off to sick men right?
So if a god can instruct men to keep children for themselves for their sexual pleasure, what does that make him?
Abeg answer.

So I've been trying to avoid answering because you don't argue intelligently and with hard facts.

Number 31: 18 is the scripture I'm sure yoú are referencing, and yes, I agree, the children of Israel were instructed to keep the virgin girls for themselves.

https://biblehub.com/numbers/31-18.htm

Now the next question is who asked them to.

Going back to verse 14, you can see that it was in fact Moses, not God, who asked them to keep the young virgin girls for themselves.

https://biblehub.com/numbers/31-14.htm

Now what was God's original instruction?

God asked them to take revenge on the Midianites because of what they had done to them.

https://biblehub.com/cev/numbers/31.htm

This was the only thing God said. It was Moses who took over from there.

uche40:
I hope you can understand my reasoning better now.

Yeah, I can definitely see where you're coming from, and while I could pick up another part of this post and argue about, I feel it has run it's beautiful course and should be ended with the following.

Under the examination lights
We have each kept our own
So now, let us agree
To disagree

jasminer:
3. God promised the Israelites that he will drive out the occupants from Canaan before them. Israelites chose to go to war as was the norm on earth in those days. God advised them that in the path they had chosen, anyone left will be a thorn in their path so they'll have to totally wipe them out. Or what should God have advised an army of people who have decided to go to war? Should he advice them to sacrifice themselves to their armies?
When they cried to God to save them from approaching enemies God saved them without them shooting a single arrow severally. When they come and inform God that they're going to war, God advised them on the path they have chosen.

Thanks for this bit of insight, never saw it that way.

First I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to have this discussion. It's not everyone who can speak with facts so we'll, and you have allowed me to view the things I believe through new eyes and offered me an opportunity to test my grasp on it.

uche40:
I appreciate the clarification, and I think I now have a firm grasp at what you're driving at here. However, I think you're having problems understanding semantics. Your application of the word "belief", especially in the context of the described scenario, is thoroughly misguided. Belief is commonly understood to mean the acceptance of certain thoughts and ideas WITHOUT proof. By definition, the word "belief" becomes irrelevant the moment evidence is presented to support a claim or idea. You are conflating belief with conviction, and are therefore guilty of committing a category error as the two words aren't entirely synonymous.

A conviction is commonly defined as a firmly held belief. Now, I know you'll be tempted to say "...but, Uche, we're still saying the same thing! Conviction is still a belief!", to which I'd respond and say that you are sorely mistaken. Belief, in colloquial terms, is essentially an opinion. A subjective truth, if you will. It doesn't necessarily rely on concrete information. Conviction does. It's why people allude to becoming convinced about certain things, because they have the relevant data to support it. So claiming that somebody still "believes" something is true even after prior encounters with a demonstration of the fact, is using the word "belief" in a careless manner.

Okay, so starting on the premise that you have given, we can say that you can believe something, even when there is no proof. This belief may not be firm and could change.

However, when one has evidence to support your belief, you don't stop believing. Rather your belief gets stronger, it becomes less malleable. It is not a swapping out of belief for conviction, it is a cementing of belief into conviction.

I agree with you, my use of the word belief was incorrect. But changing the word to conviction does not change the truth. Conviction is a strong belief, strong because there is evidence, but a belief none the less.

uche40:
In light of my recent appraisal of your argument, I still stand by my original answer that I will not BELIEVE, even if you present me with empirical evidence that God exists. Except I'll correct the latter part of answer and say that I may only become CONVINCED that there is a God.

To be convinced means to be completely certain. To be certain means to have no doubt. Doubt is defined as a lack of conviction. And, coming full circle now, conviction is a strong belief.

So you may become convinced (completely certain (having no doubt (lack of conviction(strong belief) that there is God.

So, You may be, completely having no lack of strong belief that there is God.

Or simplified.

You may be, completely having strong belief that there is God.

Meaning you believe, as a result of evidence, that God exists.

suicidesheep:
Which states law have foundation in religion, don’t your know religious countries are the shittiest countries to live in eg nigeria, America, Muslim nations.
Why do you think predominantly atheist countries (Norway Latvia, Luxembourg) are the best places in the world to live.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/best-countries-to-live-in

8 out of 10 predominantly Christian

https://livingcost.org/best

7 out of 10 predominantly Christian

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/rankings/quality-of-life

7 out of 10 predominantly Christian

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/rankings

9 out of 10 predominantly Christian

https://govisafree.com/countries-best-quality-of-life/

9 out of 10 predominantly Christian

uche40:
But, at the very least, it's good to know you're aware that you really did veer off on a ridiculous tangent. I'll indulge you just this once.

Thanks

uche40:
Now, let me clue you in on something important: whenever you select one-dimensional features or attributes of various definitions of God, in an attempt to appeal to your subjective insight of the term "God", your selection -- by implication -- can be applied to any event or activity we partake in which we accord too much importance and attention to, or which we excessively admire.

In light of your limited selection of features, I think it's safe to assume that

1) Anti-abortion campaigns are Gods
2) Skydiving is a God.
3) Playing under the rain is a God

By your definition, every single activity that people partake in is "God", making the term too broad and unintelligible since it won't convey any significant information.

Maybe it will to you, I don't know. You're strange.

I hold the belief that, every analogy can be pushed to the limits. And I intend to stand by it.

People have Gods of forging, gods of wine, and the Japanese even have god of the toilet

Kawaya no Kami, kami of the toilet.

Goddess of learning and the arts
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Sarasvati

So yes, skydiving could be a god to some people, anti-abortion campaigns to others, and playing under the rain to another group.

So, yes, I'm strange. And yes it made sense to me.

uche40:
This sentence indicates to me that you probably just skimmed through my post without giving it a thorough reading. I already refuted this claim by pointing out that not all atheists give importance to facts and figures. I made mention of spiritual atheists who believe in Karma -- which isn't supported by any evidence, facts or figures. Your repetition of this canard after I've already shown you the inaccuracy leads me to question what ulterior motives you have in this discussion.

Ah, I apologise. I have no ulterior motives, I guess I didn't understand that part of what you were saying. Thanks for the clarification.

uche40:
If the knowledge of a specific mechanism which brings about thunder and lightning is already accessible to us, I fail to see the relevance of looking for other possible mechanisms through which thunder and lightning could also be brought about.

I think I need to clarify. The point of my argument wasn't that there exists another mechanism by which thunder and lightning forms. My point was that to empirically KNOW the cause of lightning for every case, you need to prove what you know in each case. Or else you believe that it does.

uche40:
You can neither prove or disprove an unknown.

And no one is asking anyone to. What I am saying, is you prove the known to ensure it is known.

Perhaps a better analogy is in order.

Imagine
if you received money. You went to the bank and made sure the money was there. At that point you know, there is money in you account.

You leave there and go to a shop believing you have money in your account and upon arrival, you realised that the money isn't there again. You know at that moment you don't have money in your account. Hence you have disproved your knowledge. If however, you successfully bought things your knowledge would have been proved.

What I am trying to say is that Knowledge ends at the point of knowing and belief takes over until the next point of knowing.

So you may know that God exists at that point, but until you prove again that he/she/it does empirically exist you can only believe he/she/it does.

kingxsamz:
Terrible logic tbh.
Humans tend to make life easier for themselves. Taking measures due to previous actions of an individual does not justify the actions of the said individual.
I'm guessing in this case, your god is Hitler?
Is that supposed to be a good thing?

I'm not sure you read the post well. I was saying that I was wrong and you were right. Hitler is bad. Where did the story of Hitler being my God come from?

Bruh

uche40:
Please, do tell me more. This discussion just got interesting.



Before we continue, I want to remind you that this discussion we are having is framed in the context of the existence, as well as the worship of supernatural creator deities commonly addressed as gods. As I mentioned earlier, I'm looking at what is logical, and more importantly -- factual, not what might/could be.

=================================

Got it will keep it in mind.

Now, I just want to say, good job using facts and figures to counter my religious flowery speak. It stays true to your nature. But I digress.

uche40:
Now, let us look at some standard definitions of Atheism:

atheism
/ˈeɪθɪɪz(ə)m/

noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

The above definition is Oxford's. Observe the bolded phrase. Atheism is defined as LACKING belief.

A Theist would say: I have a belief in the existence of God.

An Atheist would say: I don't have a belief in the existence of God.

The Miriam Webster defines God as

God : the supreme or ultimate reality

Oxford Learners
Something to which too much importance or attention is given

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/god


Collins Dictionary
A person or thing deified or excessively honored and admired

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/god



Now, before you say anything, I would like to add, yes this is a clear case of bending the facts to suit my story. I am not an atheist, my ability to make use of facts is limited by my bias. And yes, I am straying off topic. But the point I was originally trying to make was, although atheist don't believe in some supreme being the believe in a supreme something. Theirs is just a case of exchanging one supreme for another.

What is an Atheist's supreme reality? That everything must be supported by facts and figures. If a thing can't be proved empirically it doesn't exist. Just like some Christian would say if it isn't in the Bible then it doesn't exist. (I guess that makes their bible their God)

To what does an Atheist give a lot of importance? Facts and figures. While for a Christian it is the capital G God.

What does an Atheist deify ( defined as Miriam Webster as to glorify as of supreme worth, chose this because other definitions feed back into god which is a headache)? Facts and figures, while for a Christian it is their God.

uche40:
For the record, when something is established to be factual by virtue of the provision of empirical evidence, it ceases to be a matter of belief and becomes a matter of knowledge. Take for example, the phenomena of thunder and lightning. In the ancient times, thunders were believed to be growling noises made by the gods because they were angry and throwing tantrums. It was a natural assumption to make because nobody really knew why thunders occurred, so the ancient people created myths to explain it alongside other "supernatural" occurrences at the time. But now we know that thunders are a result of atmospheric instability and other processes involving the buildup of electricity in moving clouds, the nitty gritty of which you can source from any reputable scientific journals on the internet.

Yes, we believe this holds true for all cases. I don't argue with you. We are aware of how to prove that thunder and lightning is all this. But how can we be sure that it holds true for all cases?

This is not mathematics where such cases can easily be proved using mathematical induction. In the real world things are not so easily proved. The reality is that, there may exist (I have literally broken all your ground rules, forgive me) a case that thunder and lightning can come about by another process, which can easily be proved false. However to be empirically sure that all cases hold true we must individually test each and every case.

But to do that would be stupid, expensive and frankly a waste of time. So we hold the belief that it is true for all cases, and work (successfully) with this belief.

To use mathematics as a case study. Mathematicians could just as easily assume that the digits of π appear randomly but they don't, and now they are struggling to prove whether or not this is correct. Perhaps it has some hidden benefit I am not aware of, but to the general public, saying the digits of π appear randomly works just fine for them.

uche40:
It's easy to claim there is evidence of something. The issue is actually presenting it. Mind you, no rational or honest individual can deny hard empirical evidence when it is presented before him/her. For instance, you'd find it mighty difficult to catch two people arguing that if you throw a cup out the window, it will just float in the air and won't go down. Everybody knows that gravity and its effects are real.

True, simple throwing the cup out the window would prove it. But the person could hold the belief that it was just a fluke, a mere coincidence and that surely the next time it would float.

Now you could either stand there throwing cups out the window for the rest of his life to prove it is true every single time. Or he could believe that it does and get on with his life.

uche40:
The truth is that lack of belief of God never occurs to most atheists as they carry on their daily lives. What you see is simply feedback of atheists being heckled by Christians in their families, schools and offices. Understandably, the atheists can't make any sense out of the outlandish claims made by the religious adherents, and then the gauntlet is set and the request made:

Show us the evidence.

I have to agree with you there. A lot of non-spiritual (and I don't mean unsupernatural, I mean unaware of the highest truth and what the gospel truly talks about) Christians, think that forcing their beliefs on others is the way to go. This is just not true. Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion.

Jesus never went out of his way to heckle the Pharisees. He only did so when they approached him for his own opinion. He spoke to those who went after him and never went out of His way to tell people they weren't living right unsolicited. People were attracted to him because of his lifestyle and he used that as an opportunity to speak to them.

uche40:
The more seasoned theists who encounter atheists in discussions more often weave decent arguments using sophistry and circumstantial evidence, which sounds smart to the ears

As I have tried to do here, though I don't think I am qualified to be on their level. And I will conveniently disregard the rest of that paragraph.

And one more thing, life is all circumstantial. No two real world problems are the exact same. Even if the same equations are used in it's resolution it's parameters differ. What religion ought to do is teach us those equations of life that can be used to solve the problems, regardless of the circumstances. (I wish to say more but I cant form the right words to put it so it will remain unsaid).

uche40:
That's a weird idea. I fail to relate and/or see how a person can think himself better than somebody else because they reject facts.

And yet they exist. And it's not just specific to one religion, there will always be people who are ignorant and yet proud of it. They baffle even the brightest.

uche40:
No, that's just a badly dressed word salad. And I'm not hungry.

It is. I apologise and am embarrassed.

uche40:
Which God exactly? There are many gods you know.

That's not the point. If it helps to answer the question, then let's assume Christian God is the god in question(any other God works equally as well with the example)

If the empirical evidence says He exists, would you believe?

suicidesheep:
This is you just uttering rubbish to try and prove a point

I agree, and will try better another time.

kingxsamz:
And what's bad about that?

Hence we can see, although Hitler's actions were bad, without them we may not have had UDHR.

But yeah, it has nothing to do with your question. Hitler was bad

kingxsamz:
Knowing the end of a particular course of action is something even humans are capable of. If your god can't tell what actions one will take then it's not omniscient.

You forget, humans, in Christianity, were made in the image of God. That humans can do the same does not change anything.

To know and to experience are not the same

kingxsamz:
Man, what are you saying? You're saying a lot of words and a lot things for a simple case.
You're just compiling different words without addressing the main issue.

How can you be called "good" when you are omniscient and you go ahead to grant the wish of someone who will end up killing a child? you're talking about rejection and bunch of other stuff that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
How can you know the future and everyone's decision but still go ahead to ask a man to murder his own child? What kind of sick test is that?

Address my point and leave out unnecessary details, or should I call them sermons?

Yes, I agree that my reply was wordy, a side effect of being overly passionate. But it contains the answer to your first question.

I will answer your 2nd question after you've done so. Doing anything else would be a waste of effort.

kingxsamz:
What's that?

Universal Declaration of Human Right

uche40:
Does God know what I'll have for breakfast when I wake up later today?

Answering this question involves you doing something a lot of atheist find hard doing.
You'll have to accept that contradictions exist and that they are part of life.

Yes, he does, because for him you have already made the choice. No, because you haven't made the choice yet.

And this is both at once. He both knows and doesn't know, because you both have and have not made the decision

uche40:
In your case it didn't, as I'm still yet to get the point you tried to make in your first reply to me. Were you trying to assert that atheism is indeed a religion?

First, yes (but more on that later). Second, I just had a point of view I wished to share, thought it was cool.

So back to the first point. Yes, I think Atheism is a religion, though not in the traditional sense of a supernatural god who they worship. An atheist's god is facts and figures.

They don't believe in supernatural and mythological gods, but they believe in facts and figures. A lot of atheist will say, they'll believe you if you can prove it with facts and figures. A lot of religious people will only believe you if it agrees with their religion. Show it to them within the confines of what they believe and you've got them.

Some, Atheist consider themselves better than others because they don't believe in things that can't be proven, but ignore the fact that there's a lot of evidence all around.

A lot of religious people consider themselves better because they refuse to believe in facts when the facts speak for themselves.

Belief in nothing, is still believe.

If I could prove to you empirically that God exists would you believe?

Upends

uche40:
But I don't believe such endeavor serves well in a discussion that aims to establish facts.

I understand where you're coming from. Trying to speak with someone about what is happening now and here and having them be talking about things that don't seem to help is very frustrating.

But it does, doesn't it?

A perfect example would be an analogy, which helps to explain facts to those who don't understand them.