CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
"That wasn't really giving an argument of why you believe."
It implied that I believe because it gives me meaning to life.
"You're trying to say that you know what people, who you don't know at all, seem to think or know."
People who I don't know at all? A majority of people I know are atheists who wish to present themselves as ambassadors of their beliefs, so everything they do and say is done because they think it's what atheists do.
"You have no idea if atheists have no point to life, seeing as you're not an atheist yourself."
That's why I said seem because I am merely an observer, I'm not stating that atheists everywhere are souless carcasses, I'm just saying that they (as a whole) seem to have no point in life.
"So argue your point of view, not someone else's."
That's why I said seem because I am merely an observer, I'm not stating that atheists everywhere are souless carcasses, I'm just saying that they (as a whole) seem to have no point in life.
You seem to imply that being a religious nutter is a good meaning of life.
Those who are not religious don't waste their lives thinking and caring about something as pointless and useless as religion.
I'd rather have no point in life than have a bad one like just believing in a made up thing called God.
I'll answer before you should ask, just in case. I have a meaning for my life, a purpose. It is one I chose myself, as every person should do, not blindly follow something brainwashed into you and that has no logic behind it. No logic other than it is possible to brainwash people, and to be stupid, of course.
Out of curiosity. What do you think the meaning of life is?
It implied that I believe because it gives me meaning to life.
1. I am going to point out all your errors. First of all the belief I'm god does not equal the belief in a life meaning. You must show us the reasoning as to how these two beliefs are inseparable, one can believe in a god without a belief in life purpose (not typical however) or one can believe in a meaning of life and not god. Secondly you are mistakening belief for possession, even if the meaning of life did require god, just because you believe doesn't mean you possess. I can go into a heavily delusional state where I believe I have a trillion dollars however that won't grant me a trillion dollars.
People who I don't know at all? A majority of people I know are atheists who wish to present themselves as ambassadors of their beliefs, so everything they do and say is done because they think it's what atheists do.
2. How do you know this? Even if this were true, only as a generalization at best.
That's why I said seem because I am merely an observer, I'm not stating that atheists everywhere are souless carcasses, I'm just saying that they (as a whole) seem to have no point in life.
Refer to argument 1.
How is this not my point of view?
You are arguing what atheists point of view is? Be prepared to prove to us you're arguments for how you know this.
I'm highly confused, I am discussing my personal beliefs based on my personal experiences, I don't see how you are in any sort of position to claim that I've made an error.
"First of all the belief I'm god does not equal the belief in a life meaning. You must show us the reasoning as to how these two beliefs are inseparable, one can believe in a god without a belief in life purpose (not typical however) or one can believe in a meaning of life and not god."
You are assessing an analysis I made on my original argument, I said that from my point of view, atheists seem to have no meaning to life, which is why I am a Christian and why I believe in God, because I believe it gives me a purpose in life.
"Secondly you are mistakening belief for possession, even if the meaning of life did require god, just because you believe doesn't mean you possess. I can go into a heavily delusional state where I believe I have a trillion dollars however that won't grant me a trillion dollars."
You are taking the logic applied from a situation and placing it in another situation where the same logic appears absurd.
If I believe that there is a meaning to life, then I have a meaning for life, the only person who can accurately judge such an aspect is myself.
A better application of the same logic would be to say that if I believe I'm happy, then I'm happy.
"2. How do you know this? Even if this were true, only as a generalization at best."#
Sorry, I know this because (as I clearly stated in my argument) I know them personally.
"You are arguing what atheists point of view is? Be prepared to prove to us you're arguments for how you know this."
My original argument was the reason on why I am a Christian, because from my observations the life of atheists is highly unappealing.
I'm highly confused, I am discussing my personal beliefs based on my personal experiences, I don't see how you are in any sort of position to claim that I've made an error.
Well the main reason I disputed, and what I am essentially arguing with you was your original statement that atheists had less life meaning than theists. Also, with all due respect, this is a debate site, the point is to debate, and that is naturally what I am doing.
You are assessing an analysis I made on my original argument, I said that from my point of view, atheists seem to have no meaning to life, which is why I am a Christian and why I believe in God, because I believe it gives me a purpose in life.
Well in your original argument, you never claimed your statement of personal feelings, a subjective opinion, or simply your beliefs. When I hear a simple statement along the lines of "atheists have no meaning to life" I take that as a determination of reality rather than it being similar to the statement "I feel as though theism personally gives my life more meaning". However I find it a bit irrelevant, as like I have said earlier, this is a debate, the point is to compare our reasoning, our validity of our stances, etc.
You are taking the logic applied from a situation and placing it in another situation where the same logic appears absurd. If I believe that there is a meaning to life, then I have a meaning for life, the only person who can accurately judge such an aspect is myself. A better application of the same logic would be to say that if I believe I'm happy, then I'm happy.
Like I have said, your original argument came off as more of a determination of reality rather than your personal feelings. Secondly, I feel as though my analogy still stands, you can believe your happy and not be happy at all, how absurd as that sounds, I don't see it being physically impossible to be in denial of being in a state of depression. Though I see your point as it can be subjective, life can mean something to you, and religion gives that life meaning for you.
Sorry, I know this because (as I clearly stated in my argument) I know them personally.
I was asking for an elaboration, did they directly tell you this yourself (which I doubt) or have you made those judgements on observation, if so explain to me these observations. I have a suspicion they are judgements of personal bias on them.
My original argument was the reason on why I am a Christian, because from my observations the life of atheists is highly unappealing.
I find that debateable, and what would be the point of this debate if we weren't supposed to debate on it naturally.
How is this not my point of view?
Of course, as is every opinion of yours and same goes with me and my opinions.
"Well the main reason I disputed, and what I am essentially arguing with you was your original statement that atheists had less life meaning than theists."
I had deliberately outlined that these were atheists that I knew and my conclusion was from my observations of them, my purpose was to avoid this sort of backlash.
"Also, with all due respect, this is a debate site, the point is to debate, and that is naturally what I am doing."
Yes, this is a debating site. The appropriate way to act would have been to find some other evidence which would have shown why my personal experiences are not representative of the majority of atheism, instead you claimed that I had made an error.
"Well in your original argument, you never claimed your statement of personal feelings, a subjective opinion, or simply your beliefs.When I hear a simple statement along the lines of "atheists have no meaning to life" I take that as a determination of reality rather than it being similar to the statement "I feel as though theism personally gives my life more meaning". However I find it a bit irrelevant, as like I have said earlier, this is a debate, the point is to compare our reasoning, our validity of our stances, etc."
When I say my original argument I am referring to my dispute on Saurbaby's response to my first argument in this debate which I created for comedic effect. I apologise if my referencing has caused confusion as it was an error on my part.
When you had recently disputed me I had only looking at the argument you were disputing, assuming that was my original argument. I can now see that my actual original argument may have appeared quite ignorant and insensitive. As I said earlier I was trying to make a humourous contradiction in my own logic.
I now acknowledge your stance on this issue and agree with it.
Is this preferable to belonging to a death cult, one that encourages you to spend your life on your knees groveling like a trained dog, in submission to something that lives in your own mind until you finally reap your intangible rewards in death?
I'ld prefer belonging to a "dealth cult" than spending every day of my life for my own personal gain where the only rewards are either sex, money or fame. All of which I know will one day be meaningless.
You forgot happiness. And I have no interest in fame.
I don't see why it's bad to seek sex, monetary success, fame, or happiness in the here and now, the only state of being we can confirm exists (at least to ourselves), and furthermore I dont see why it's better to spend every day working towards personal gain in a post-death fantasy land that may not even exist. If you're going to be selfish, why not be so here, where it matters, and enjoy yourself now instead of focusing your selfishness inward and on something ethereal?
So you spend all your life for personal gain, what good is that to society?
Where does he say that he's spending his life for personal gain? Looks like your misinterpreting his argument in order to make it easier to refute (strawman fallacy)
I've accepted the fact that I'm going to die, and even though I probably won't be happy about it, it still happens.
Trying to kid yourself into believing you're doing anything worthwhile is a waste of time. You go to school, you go to work (not even a job you like, but one you have to do regardless because you need to survive.)
You might just say you're passing time, waiting for your calling. But, you might die before you get that calling. Not everyone can be the next Noah, and who's to say God will choose you of all people?
It's unreasonable to think that we all have a purpose, because fact is, we are only here to continue the human race.
what do you feel..........yeah god is with me.....and will be forever.let me tell you what is the proof that god is there.......i Can give you thousands of examples too show that god is nothing but a silly false beliefs......little weak mind person
of course. i belived that jesus died for our sins, and that if you belive in god and follow the ten commandments you will be saved. confess with your mouth, and belive in your heart that jesus is lord and you will be saved.
I believe simply because I found there to be enough reason for there to be a higher being, and thus studied various religions on the concept of salvation theory. I decided to stick with a moderate Baptist christian stance because I found the Christian concepts of salvation to be the most theologically acceptable/likely.
I think there could be. It would be more interesting, anyway. I don't think they are omnipotent or anything though. Just much more powerful and intelligent than us.
This is the question that will solve any religious debate. It all comes down to this:
How do we find truth?
I believe that we find truth through the holy spirit. That when we exercise faith by praying and reading scripture; the truth will be revealed. Yes this is faith but it's not blind. Because there is evidence personal spiritual evidence. (yes it's not scientific I know)
Others believe that you find truth through your five senses. This is partly true. The scientific method has done much good for mankind. And I believe that god has blessed us with those abilities.
I really find it immature to constantly try to separate God and Science. It's really closed minded if you think about it. Yes a lot of Christians are stupid and say they don't trust science but they don't represent the whole christian world!!(an utterly common misconception) Childish atheists usually use them as an example to poke fun at the other side. (note that I don't think they represent the entire atheist world either)
So let us be adults and agree to disagree on the point of truth. Considering a huge part of the scientific world is compromise and agreeing to disagree, you'd think that the non religious world would show a little more maturity.
It is blind. One cannot be truly pious without making an irrational leap of faith. There is no possible way to know in advance whether or not the holy spirit will answer your prayers, or even to assign probability. Therefore, the faith is blind.
Because there is evidence personal spiritual evidence. (yes it's not scientific I know)
What's more likely? That you were personally contacted by the supernatural creator, of whom there is no tangible evidence, and one who possesses contradictory attributes?
Or that you are honestly mistaken?
I really find it immature to constantly try to separate God and Science. It's really closed minded if you think about it.
Why? Science is a methodology dedicated to discovering truth through repeated research, experiment, and scrutiny. Religion is blind faith that claims to already have the answers, without the need for testing or verification. It is not closed minded to separate them, it's beneficial to the scientists.
If you'd excuse my poor analogy, it's why we don't have obese people run the 100 metres, or let retards teach children. It's detrimental to everyone.
Yes a lot of Christians are stupid and say they don't trust science but they don't represent the whole christian world!!(an utterly common misconception)
This is something that always puzzles me. Who does represent the Christian world? Is it not the bumbling, moronic creationists who reject science? Is it then the rambling extremists at the Westboro Baptist Church? Is it a Kent Hovind type, one who employs strange pseudoscience to make their case? Or is it the bigwigs at the Vatican?
My personal favourite would be the ones I know, those that don't need representing, because their beliefs are private, and have no place in public affairs.
"There is no possible way to know in advance whether or not the holy spirit will answer your prayers, or even to assign probability. Therefore, the faith is blind."
This is true but the point I'm making is that there is evidence. Not by the scientific definition of evidence but a personal spiritual evidence.
I don't know if I will see the sun rise tomorrow the sun could explode in the middle of the night. I could die in my sleep. But if I do see it tomorrow I'll know it's there and that I saw it.
-and this isn't one of those cheezy cop outs. I really want to stress the point of evidence.
"What's more likely? That you were personally contacted by the supernatural creator, of whom there is no tangible evidence, and one who possesses contradictory attributes?
Or that you are honestly mistaken?"
You're asking for guesswork. Deciding what is less likely vs seeking truth. There's sort of a method for finding truth. Searching pondering and praying. Yes we have the scientific method for physical tangible things here on earth. But for other answers we can search the scriptures, think about it, and ask God.
"Religion is blind faith that claims to already have the answers, without the need for testing or verification."
To already have what answers? all of them? We can get a little more specific here(and not all religion is the same) My religion is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints also known as the Mormon church.(for the sake of convenience we might consider having a separate debate before we get to deep into my beliefs) We don't claim to have every answer to everything. We know that we sometimes have to say I don't know. It takes humility. And we don't disregard science.
" It is not closed minded to separate them, it's beneficial to the scientists."
Which scientists? The religious ones or the non religious ones? It sure isn't scientific to separate the two I can tell you that.
In the scientific world different opposing ideas get scrutinized all the time and they are forced to coexist maybe even forever. How is this any different? To separate these two things you are disregarding the way science works!
"If you'd excuse my poor analogy, it's why we don't have obese people run the 100 metres, or let retards teach children. It's detrimental to everyone."
Do you think it's poor? I actually don't understand the analogy could you help me out? If you're doing what I think you're doing(which is poking fun) it is poor and I won't excuse it.
"Who does represent the Christian world?"
An excellent question. Nobody. There are so soo many different christian religions let alone religions period. So you can't really criticize them as a whole can you? Well I guess you could but it wouldn't be very nice.
"Is it not the bumbling, moronic creationists who reject science? Is it then the rambling extremists at the Westboro Baptist Church? Is it a Kent Hovind type, one who employs strange pseudoscience to make their case? Or is it the bigwigs at the Vatican?"
No. -but it's interesting that you pick those to ask about. Why is that? Let's talk about that. Shall we? Should we further explore you're uncontrolled bias?
"My personal favourite would be the ones I know, those that don't need representing, because their beliefs are private, and have no place in public affairs."
Who needs representing? Does that have anything to do with this debate?
And who said anything about public affairs? What are you doing?
This is true but the point I'm making is that there is evidence. Not by the scientific definition of evidence but a personal spiritual evidence.
How do you know that it's evidence? If no-one else can verify it, then the chance that you are mistaken increases. While it may be evidence, I find it more likely that you are... I don't know, misguided? I'm not sure what the word would be. "Hallucinating" is too far.
I don't know if I will see the sun rise tomorrow the sun could explode in the middle of the night. I could die in my sleep. But if I do see it tomorrow I'll know it's there and that I saw it.
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. The examples you provided are all based on empiricism, something spiritual contact cannot be based on.
You're asking for guesswork.
Not really. I'm asking for probability. After all, we may as well educate our "guess".
But for other answers we can search the scriptures, think about it, and ask God.
Sometimes schizophrenics ask voices in their heads for answers. They rarely get them. While religion is certainly not a mental disorder, it is comparable to a few of them.
To already have what answers?
The answers to the questions that science currently can't answer (not with absolute certainty anyway). What caused the Big Bang? Why is the universe the way it is? Where did the first life come from? Et cetera.
We don't claim to have every answer to everything. We know that we sometimes have to say I don't know. It takes humility. And we don't disregard science.
This is new. What do you not know then?
And, inadvertently or not, invoking the supernatural instantly disregards the scientific method.
Which scientists? The religious ones or the non religious ones? It sure isn't scientific to separate the two I can tell you that.
It isn't scientific. It's beneficial.
In the scientific world different opposing ideas get scrutinized all the time and they are forced to coexist maybe even forever.
Not necessarily. The vast majority of scientific ideas only last until something comes along to disprove it. Take the arrival of heliocentrism for example. The problem is that religious ideas can never be disproved, making them unscientific.
Do you think it's poor?
I think it's slightly too crude. The principle is fine though.
I actually don't understand the analogy could you help me out?
OK. Take soccer as an example. Soccer is 11 players all working towards scoring goals to win games. Now, in professional soccer, the players all have to be immensely talented, willing to improve, and able to work as a team. But what if you have a player who can't do these things? We'll call him X. Then X plays poorly, but, the team plays poorly too. Thus, you don't let people like X on the team.
Now imagine that you have 11 scientists, and the goal is discovery. Now, call X "religion". Religion can't offer brilliant testing methods and evidence, can't improve its answers, and causes friction among the scientific community.
Why would you let religion on the team then?
So you can't really criticize them as a whole can you? Well I guess you could but it wouldn't be very nice.
One can criticize the general ideals held by all of them. That a supernatural being created everything, and that he cares, and that he has revealed himself.
No. -but it's interesting that you pick those to ask about. Why is that? Let's talk about that. Shall we? Should we further explore you're uncontrolled bias?
If you want. But on the condition that you don't complain about the relevance of it to the debate.
Who needs representing? Does that have anything to do with this debate?
And who said anything about public affairs? What are you doing?
It is relevant for two reasons.
1. I was asking you a question.
2. It's one of the reasons I don't believe in God. If every theist was like the ones I know, then I might take the idea more seriously. But the ones that have the largest voices make the least sense, and shoot themselves in the foot.
I'm saying there are different kinds of evidence. This isn't physical evidence. I already made a point to say it isn't scientific but you typically went ahead and ignored that going for the classic overdone "prove it" argument.
"I find it more likely that you are... I don't know, misguided?"
What you happen to find "likely" doesn't hold any weight.
"I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here."
Just expounding on spiritual evidence. Perhaps it wasn't the best example. Why can't spiritual contact be based on empiricism? I think we're looking at this from two different angles. Everything I'm talking about is on a personal level.
Not some text book this is for everybody try to convince everybody point of view. Contrary to mainstream Christianity that's not what I'm doing.
" I'm asking for probability."
Okay well that's where we differ. I believe in a direct source of truth. You do not. So the idea of probability(in a personal religious sense) would be useless to me. Like I said before unless we agree to disagree on that there will be no healthy educational debate.
"Sometimes schizophrenics ask voices in their heads for answers. They rarely get them. While religion is certainly not a mental disorder, it is comparable to a few of them."
What's your point?
"This is new. What do you not know then?"
Lots. I don't know about where god came from. I don't know for sure about how the earth was created. etc. I could go on. This is part of why we don't disregard science.
"And, inadvertently or not, invoking the supernatural instantly disregards the scientific method."
Interesting. What exactly do you mean by "invoking the supernatural instantly"?
"It isn't scientific. It's beneficial."
Hmm that sounds irrational. Don't forget to add reason.
"Not necessarily. The vast majority of scientific ideas only last until something comes along to disprove it. Take the arrival of heliocentrism for example. The problem is that religious ideas can never be disproved, making them unscientific."
Okay that doesn't contradict what I said. Sometimes theories are disproved and sometimes they are not. I agree that the majority of them are.
I never said that religious Ideas were scientific. Sorry... I know you're so used to that.
'sigh' I guess I'm not your everyday christian. This is tricky isn't it? (; I was being sort of hypothetical when I referred to the scientific world it was an example.
"Now imagine that you have 11 scientists, and the goal is discovery. Now, call X "religion". Religion can't offer brilliant testing methods and evidence, can't improve its answers, and causes friction among the scientific community."
That is all true. Accept for the friction thing. There will only be friction if you let it happen. There is often friction. That is the fault of both sides.
"Why would you let religion on the team then?"
Oh that is such a good question. You said "religion can't offer brilliant testing methods and evidence" etc. So tell me what exactly does this religion player represent? Anyone who has religious beliefs or religion it's self?
Of course an abstract idea can't provide that stuff. OR you could be saying that only atheists should be allowed to be scientists? I'll give you a chance to explain yourself before I compare you to Hitler.
"One can criticize the general ideals held by all of them"
That's better.
"If every theist was like the ones I know, then I might take the idea more seriously. But the ones that have the largest voices make the least sense, and shoot themselves in the foot."
So are you admitting that you're letting the loud majority represent everyone els? Or is it that you just find them annoying and want to rant? -I'm legitimately asking. I would understand I think they're annoying too.
I agree that people shoot their feet often. It doesn't hurt me to criticize other Christians as long as it's case by case and not discriminating.
Why can't spiritual contact be based on empiricism?
Because you can't observe spirits.
What's your point?
That just because you can get answers from something in your head, it doesn't prove that the thing is real.
Lots. I don't know about where god came from. I don't know for sure about how the earth was created. etc. I could go on. This is part of why we don't disregard science.
But you believe that God is eternal, and that God created the Earth, yes?
Interesting. What exactly do you mean by "invoking the supernatural instantly"?
The supernatural cannot be tested or verified using natural methods. Therefore, the supernatural disregards the scientific method. So using the supernatural is unscientific.
Hmm that sounds irrational. Don't forget to add reason
I gave you my reason.
That is all true. Accept for the friction thing. There will only be friction if you let it happen. There is often friction. That is the fault of both sides.
I'll accept that.
So tell me what exactly does this religion player represent? Anyone who has religious beliefs or religion it's self?
Religion itself.
OR you could be saying that only atheists should be allowed to be scientists?
What on Earth are you on about?
I'll give you a chance to explain yourself before I compare you to Hitler.
That would be a wise thing to do. What I'm saying is that religion and science struggle to mix. That's it. I couldn't care less whether or not a scientist is religious, as long as he keeps his beliefs out of his research.
So are you admitting that you're letting the loud majority represent everyone els? Or is it that you just find them annoying and want to rant?
If these are the people on the TV, or in the news, or whatever, claiming to speak for the Christian world, then sure, I'll let them represent everyone else. It's not my job to change that.
You can observe your own spirit. That's why this is personal.
"That just because you can get answers from something in your head, it doesn't prove that the thing is real."
1. You can't prove that it is "in your head".
2. It's not about proving in the first place.
"But you believe that God is eternal, and that God created the Earth, yes?"
Yes. But I don't claim to know all the details. I'm not saying it hurts to try and discover these details through science.
"The supernatural cannot be tested or verified using natural methods. Therefore, the supernatural disregards the scientific method. So using the supernatural is unscientific."
I agree with that. I kind of already made that point.
"I gave you my reason."
But it was still irrational.
"Religion itself."
So you're complaining that an idea can't offer brilliant testing methods and evidence? That's silly.
"What on Earth are you on about?"
That's what I was going to ask you? When you say why let religion on the team what are you implying?
"What I'm saying is that religion and science struggle to mix. That's it. I couldn't care less whether or not a scientist is religious, as long as he keeps his beliefs out of his research."
What you were saying is that faith is blind and that my personal beliefs are 'unlikely'. But whatever.
I would agree if you said that religious people and non religious people struggle to mix. But it's pretty closed minded to separate the two. It's a competitive thing. We both know that science is concrete and you're trying to separate the two to make anyone who believes in god look bad.
"If these are the people on the TV, or in the news, or whatever, claiming to speak for the Christian world, then sure, I'll let them represent everyone else. It's not my job to change that."
Why don't you just take it case by case instead of judging very large groups of people?
You can observe your own spirit. That's why this is personal.
No, you cannot observe a spirit. You can experience one, but you cannot physically see one.
You can't prove that it is "in your head".
I can put a probability on it.
Yes. But I don't claim to know all the details. I'm not saying it hurts to try and discover these details through science.
OK, little hypothetical then. Say that science came out and, whilst not completely disproving God, eliminated all need for a creator being, and had a complete model of the universe. Would you give up your faith?
But it was still irrational.
Why? I gave an in depth explanation AND clarification as to why I saw it as beneficial.
So you're complaining that an idea can't offer brilliant testing methods and evidence? That's silly.
Straw man.
That's what I was going to ask you? When you say why let religion on the team what are you implying?
I'm not implying anything, I'm asking you a question.
What you were saying is that faith is blind and that my personal beliefs are 'unlikely'.
And I stand by that.
I would agree if you said that religious people and non religious people struggle to mix.
And I would disagree with that. I get on perfectly fine with religious people, as have most irreligious folk throughout history.
But it's pretty closed minded to separate the two. It's a competitive thing.
A competition between what?
We both know that science is concrete and you're trying to separate the two to make anyone who believes in god look bad.
Straw man dos. I'm saying that religion should have no involvement in science, in the same way we don't let Pastafarian teachings influence quantum physicists. The religious can do what they want.
Why don't you just take it case by case instead of judging very large groups of people?
Like I said, i's not my job to do that. If the Christian world can't organize itself efficiently, why should I be the one making excuses for them?
"No, you cannot observe a spirit. You can experience one, but you cannot physically see one."
I never said you had to physically see one.
"I can put a probability on it."
Based on what? That's my point, you base finding truth on worldly science. I base finding truth on the holy ghost. We're going nowhere with this which was the original point I was making. You're proving my point this is incompatible.
Almost every atheist I've met on this site tries to make these debates about proving god exists.(because you know I can't) It doesn't have to be about that.
"OK, little hypothetical then. Say that science came out and, whilst not completely disproving God, eliminated all need for a creator being, and had a complete model of the universe. Would you give up your faith?"
I have the ability to consider different ideas and think of things from others perspectives.
The best way I can answer this is that I believe that we learn all things through the holy ghost. That includes science. If there was a God wouldn't it make sense for him to provide a way for us to learn and develop things? That's part of why we're here. Just because I'm Christian doesn't mean I expect a spiritual answer for everything. We have to work with what we have.
So it's difficult for me to answer your question in that context. I would say no. Because my source of truth is greater than the mere theories of men(that don't usually last forever.)
I heard a story once I'm pretty sure it's true but either way it makes a good point. Einstein had an assistant who would help him give tests to students. He recognized the test from the previous year and asked Einstein "how could you give the same test you gave last year to the same students"?
Einstein replied "because since last year the answers have changed".
"Straw man."
So then what point were you making when you said that religion can't offer those things?
"I'm not implying anything, I'm asking you a question."
Ok here's what you said:
"OK. Take soccer as an example. Soccer is 11 players all working towards scoring goals to win games. Now, in professional soccer, the players all have to be immensely talented, willing to improve, and able to work as a team. But what if you have a player who can't do these things? We'll call him X. Then X plays poorly, but, the team plays poorly too. Thus, you don't let people like X on the team.
Now imagine that you have 11 scientists, and the goal is discovery. Now, call X "religion". Religion can't offer brilliant testing methods and evidence, can't improve its answers, and causes friction among the scientific community.
Why would you let religion on the team then?"
By using a hypothetical example such as this you weren't trying to make a point or imply anything? That's weird.
So team represents a group of scientists and x represents religion. That doesn't make sense. How can religion (a belief) be on the same team as people?
"And I would disagree with that. I get on perfectly fine with religious people, as have most irreligious folk throughout history."
I take that back now that I think of it most atheist I've met have been very kind and understanding. But the one's on the internet are just ruthless.
"I'm saying that religion should have no involvement in science, in the same way we don't let Pastafarian teachings influence quantum physicists. The religious can do what they want."
I agree. I think there's a difference between the separation of god and science and the separation of religion and science.
It's fine to not let one interfere with another but when you say anyone who believes in god is disregarding science you're being incredibly biased and closed minded. And intolerant.
And to be fare you're saying X shouldn't interfere with Y (I agree) but then you're letting Y interfere with X all the time.
"If the Christian world can't organize itself efficiently, why should I be the one making excuses for them?"
Lol of course the Christian world cannot organize itself efficiently. Do you realize how many conflicting beliefs are within that world?
And I never said you should be making excuses for them just try to be tolerant of other peoples beliefs. That is all.
Based on what? That's my point, you base finding truth on worldly science. I base finding truth on the holy ghost. We're going nowhere with this which was the original point I was making. You're proving my point this is incompatible.
Actually, my probability isn't based on science, it's based on philosophy and logic. Simply and briefly, the Judeo-Christian God contradicts itself multiple times, and almost certainly cannot exist as its doctrine describes.
Almost every atheist I've met on this site tries to make these debates about proving god exists.(because you know I can't) It doesn't have to be about that.
All I want is a debate about your reasons for believing in God, I know you can't prove God exists.
The best way I can answer this is that I believe that we learn all things through the holy ghost. That includes science. If there was a God wouldn't it make sense for him to provide a way for us to learn and develop things?
So why would God have this methodology essentially disprove his existence (in the hypothetical)?
So then what point were you making when you said that religion can't offer those things?
Is that what you said? I may have misread your response, it looked like you were saying that it's silly to complain about ideas. But anyway, why is it silly to complain about religion's shortcomings?
By using a hypothetical example such as this you weren't trying to make a point or imply anything? That's weird.
The point will come when you answer the question.
So team represents a group of scientists and x represents religion. That doesn't make sense. How can religion (a belief) be on the same team as people?
I should really clear that up. X is religious scientists actively letting their religion affect their research. I thought I could just put "religion", but meh.
It's fine to not let one interfere with another but when you say anyone who believes in god is disregarding science you're being incredibly biased and closed minded. And intolerant.
Prove me wrong then.
Lol of course the Christian world cannot organize itself efficiently. Do you realize how many conflicting beliefs are within that world?
Which surely tells you something about the veracity of their claims, no?
I believe in God because He died on the cross for our sins and rose from the grave. Muhammad and Budda there graves are not empty but Jesus grave is empty. Jesus fulfilled 30 prophecies and Muhammad and Budda fulfilled none.
Who keeps downvoting my agruments everytime when I post something? Whoever keeps doing it keep doing because you will lose points. This is the 2nd time in a row.
The fact that many of mankind fail to make sense of certain aspects of this life
should not dissuade from belief in God. The duty of man is not to question or deny the
attributes or presence of God, and not to incline to arrogance through professing to be
able to do a better job, but rather to accept human station in this life and do the best that can be done with what we’ve been given. By analogy, the fact that a person does not like the way the boss does things at work, and fails to understand the decisions he makes, does not negate his existence. Rather, each person’s duty is to fulfill a job description in order to be paid and promoted. Similarly, failure to grasp or approve of the way God orders creation does not negate His existence. Rather, humankind should recognize with humility that, unlike the workplace boss, who may be wrong, God by definition is of absolute perfection, always right and never wrong. Humankind should bow down to Him in willing submission and in recognition that failure to understand His design on our part does not reflect error on His part. Rather, He is The Lord and Master of Creation and we are not, He knows all and we do not, He orders all affairs according to His perfect attributes, and we simply remain His subjects, along for the ride of our lives.
A true God (and true prophet/master/son of god/priest or any other spiritual or religious leader) would welcome and encourage us to have questions and would think it is wise to have doubts. Only through real understanding can anyone become a true follower and an enlightened or graced person.
The fact that many of mankind fail to make sense of certain aspects of this life
should not dissuade from belief in God. The duty of man is not to question or deny the
attributes or presence of God, and not to incline to arrogance through professing to be
able to do a better job, but rather to accept human station in this life and do the best that can be done with what we’ve been given. By analogy, the fact that a person does not like the way the boss does things at work, and fails to understand the decisions he makes, does not negate his existence. Rather, each person’s duty is to fulfill a job description in order to be paid and promoted. Similarly, failure to grasp or approve of the way God orders creation does not negate His existence. Rather, humankind should recognize with humility that, unlike the workplace boss, who may be wrong, God by definition is of absolute perfection, always right and never wrong. Humankind should bow down to Him in willing submission and in recognition that failure to understand His design on our part does not reflect error on His part. Rather, He is The Lord and Master of Creation and we are not, He knows all and we do not, He orders all affairs according to His perfect attributes, and we simply remain His subjects, along for the ride of our lives.
There is absolutely no reason to think that there is any god anywhere.
This being the case, it makes you look fairly delusional to keep stating what you think god is or isn't, since you have no information about a god to go on.
I can only read and not understand, you said: "meni ne potribno nadati dokazi, sho bog isnoe tomoo sho ya vzhe obgovopyuvali z vami z privoddoo icnovnnya boga " Translation according to Google :" Menі not potrіbno nadati proof, scho іsnuє God, that I scho vzhe obgovoryuvali s s drive you іsnuvannya God."
Well I am going to speak a language that many of you don't know you are just going to find out yourself what language I am speaking. The reason is because so that people won't be able to dispute my arguments.
There are three ways in which something could exist: -it came from nothing
-it had been created
-it had built itself.
- it has always existed.
Logic can tell us that nothing can create nothing. And it is absurd to think that the universe created itself.
Now you have two options left: _it was created
-it always existed.
We know it could not have always existed because it has been scientifically proven that the universe had a beginning (big bang)
So we have one option, it has been caused or created. Now, how was it created? Many would say the laws of nature created the universe, but we have a problem there, because many aspects of the theories which would allow quantum tunneling and quantum fluctuation require the universe created to be a closed universe, but our universe turns out to be an open universe.
A supposedly fulfilled prophecy needs to be accurate enough to be relevant, unable to be fulfilled by the will of man, and provable beyond all reasonable doubt in order to be genuine.
For example, saying some people will die or disasters will happen is too vague. Predicting your religion will conquer a certain area, or a child will be born in a specific place with a given name motivates those who believe in the prophecy to make it so. And proof cant be hearsay.
No, show me a carbon dated, 2000-year-old prophecy that predicts, for example, a natural disaster occurring in a specific spot at a specific time and accurately describing the results (number of casualties, buildings destroyed, etc...), and I'll be impressed.
I investigated each one, briefly, and was confronted with the usual load of scripture backed bullshit on every site. If there's something interesting on a website, show me the article or summarize the argument in your dispute, but I don't have time to trawl through even more religious propaganda sites. Give me a site i can credit to being relatively reliable (anything with "Islam" in the domain doesn't make the cut) and either point me to a specific part of the site that addresses my argument or supports yours, or just paraphrase it for me.
I generally try to refrain from spamming atheist propaganda in lieu of an argument because i think it indicates i lack the wherewithal or eloquence to make the case for my opinion.
Technically if it was indeed a "propaganda site" then it would actually be a dishonest site because there would be some truth. I am just saying. This post is neutral.
Propaganda is just information or media aimed at getting people to think a certain way, as opposed to information that is purely informative and lets people draw their own conclusions. If the people making the media or collecting the information have, in their tasks, a mission to persuade people to think how they want them to, i would call that biased and i would call it propaganda and i would call it a load of useless lies.
And i find comforting support for my ideas on sites aimed at getting people to be atheists, but i wouldn't use my security blanket as a tool of persuasion. I try to post the most unbiased sources possible or only use irrefutable information presented in a biased source. The list of sites above complies to neither of those standards.
And the best lies usually contain some element of truth.
I don't know what this shows in any context other than extreme unoriginality and a complete lack of imagination. This is a psychological refuge. Obviously if you go around "warning" people about the kind of fantasy-land stuff you find in religious dogma people aren't going to take you seriously. That's just common sense, not wisdom.
Arguments from incredulity are not arguments, nor are arguments from design or ignorance, which is what the arguments on this site are. After this one, I had no desire to search the other two, if you wish to argue their points, I'll be more than happy to.
one of them probably talks about the defeat of Rome. The Romans were defeated on the lowest point on earth, it has been proven that where they fought was indeed the lowest point on earth. (Alf Laam Meem The Roman Empire has been defeated In the lowest part of the Earth and they, after being defeated, shall overcome Within a few years. Allah's is the command before and after; and on that day the believers shall rejoice With the help of Allah; He helps whom He pleases; and He is the Mighty, the Merciful (This is) Allah's promise! Allah will not fail His promise, but most people do not know They know the outward of this world's life, but of the hereafter they are absolutely heedless
I never tried posting this, what do you think? not too harsh
There is no consensus on this, from a historical perspective, or from a Qu'ran translation perspective. It seems that the Romans were defeated in Jerusalem and not on the dead sea.
Also there is ambiguity in the translation of Adna, which some say means nearer in traditional Arabic, but is used now as lowest, lower or minimum. I don't know too much about history, but I do know that it is written by the victors, so given the defeat of the Eastern Roman Empire by the Arabs, I'd say there's a good chance this was written in after, but this is only my opinion and not a fully informed rebuttal
I'm not going to argue this too much, as I said my historical knowledge is sparse, and my knowledge of Arabic even more so, limited to phrases and small conversations, what I will say though is that I wouldn't trust info on Blogs.
My main dispute was centered around the validity of the Qu'ran passage, how can it be trusted as accurate?
Not only that but it even talks about the Byzantines being victorious again in a few years, Alif, Lam, Mim. The Romans have been defeated in the lowest land, but after their defeat they will THEMSELVES BE VICTORIOUS IN A FEW YEARS' TIME... (Sura Rum, 1-4)
This was revealed around 620 CE, seven years after the defeat of Byzantium by the Persians. Yet the verses stated that Byzantium would shortly be victorious. Byzantium had suffered such heavy losses that it seemed impossible for it even to survive, let alone be victorious. Not only the Persians, but others posed serious threats to it. The empire was on the point of collapse. Many areas were invaded by the Persians.
Everyone was expecting the Byzantine Empire to be destroyed. But at that moment, the verses of Sura Rum were revealed, announcing that Byzantium would triumph. This seemed so impossible that Arab polytheists made fun of these verses.Around seven years after this, in 627 CE, a battle between Byzantium and the Persian Empire was fought. And this time the Byzantine army unexpectedly defeated the Persians. Later, the Persians made an agreement, obliging them to return the territories they had taken.
Ok, I think I may have found what you wanted. The early Muslim community perceived the Christian Byzantine Empire (or Eastern Romans, therefore ar-Rum) as nearer to their religion, whilst the Meccans felt more inclined to the Persian religion.
The Meccan polytheists taunted the Muslims by pointing to the recent military defeats of the Byzantines by the Persian Sassanid Empire, that adhered to Zoroastrianism, and predicted that the Christian Byzantines were about to be defeated, and that the Muslims were next in line
In this situation, in AD 615, Muhammad announced that he had received a revelation, the Sura al-Rum, that the Romans would triumph over the Persians and the Muslims over the Meccan polytheists . The Qur'an, Chapter 30, Verse 1-6 says: "Alif Lam Mim. The Romans are vanquished,In the lowest land, and they, after being vanquished, shall overcome,within a few years. Allah's is the command before and after; and on that day the believers shall rejoice,
With the help of Allah; He helps whom He pleases; and He is the Mighty, the Merciful; (This is) Allah's promise! Allah will not fail His promise, but most people do not know."
You should know two things, in the battle in Israel, very near the dead sea, they were fighting on the lowest land, the lowest point on earth, this could not have been known at the time. Second, prediction was revealed in the Quran around the year 620 AD, about 7 years after the severe defeat of the Christian Byzantine armies (led by Heraclius) by the idolatrous Persians. The first verses of Surat-Ar-Rum predicted that the severely defeated Romans would soon be victorious over the idolatrous Persians. At the Battle of Antioch in 613–614 AD, the Persians took control over important Byzantine territories expanding into Syria, Jerusalem, Armenia and Egypt. The Byzantium was so very unlikely to get over this Persian expansion and was about to collapse totally. In 622, Heraclius gained a number of victories over the Persians and conquered Armenia. In 627, the two empires fought a decisive battle at Nineveh, some 50 km east of the Tigris river, near Baghdad.
In verse 4, the Arabic word "biḍa‘" (Arabic بضع) that is translated as "a few" means a number between 3 to 9[4]. That's to say, the Romans shall be victorious over the Persians within three to nine years of their previous defeat in 613–614 AD. The first remarkable victory of Heraclius over the Persians after his defeat was in the Battle of Issus in 622 AD.
I prophecy should need to guesstimate within a few days, ideally it should say "and the Romans will be defeated at 8:58am on Wednesday, May 2, 622AD." For example. Also predicting the outcome of a battle opens up human interpretation and motivation regarding the prediction, ideally it should predict something outside of human control, so humans cant fulfill a prophecy by their own means.
As for it being the lowest place on earth... this could be as indicative of divine revelation as it is of circumstantial ignorance. No doubt the tallest mountains known the the people in that area around 600AD were, in their minds, the tallest mountains on earth. But, like i said, maybe it was enlightenment. The problem is that its potentially a lucky guess and cant prove anything as assuredly as the timestamped prediction example i wrote above.
All the prophecies came true, I just gave you the one you wanted, and come on, the prophecy seemed so very unlikely and why ware you talking about mountains what does that have to do with anything?
All the prophecies came true, I just gave you the one you wanted
What i wanted was a prophecy that is distinct, has significant evidence backing it, predicts a detailed outcome, and cant be force-fulfilled by mankind. You claim they all came true but only this one is accurate, specific, and provable? And this one isnt even any of those things, not by my standards.
It seemed highly unlikely to you that one military force warring with another might achieve victory after a vague span of time?
Also all the research i did says that that war ended in victory around 628AD. A prophecy specific enough to differentiate between a victory in war and a victory in battle would be nice.
And the mountain comment was addressing the Dead Sea being the lowest point on earth prediction. That could be divine revelation, god describing the topography of the land to Muhammad, or it could be a lucky guess, primarily based in an ignorance of the world outside the Holy Land. I.e. when you whole world is restricted to areas you have seen yourself, the tallest mountain in the world is, for you, the tallest mountain you've seen.
I doubt it is a lucky guess. I mean, of all the places in the world, Mohammed was not even in Israel. The prediction was accurate, and specific but to some extent, such as who will win and who will lose. Maybe not specific in timing. though. What if I give a nice list of prophecies and the amount all together would give my argument some credibility. At least you admitted that it is possible for the koran mentioning the lowest land to be a divine revelation.
The prediction was 50/50, predicting the victory of one military group over another. Specific would be the exact date, time, and locations that notable battles would be fought, the names of the people involved, casualty reports, knowledge of anything that might be looted or pillaged, etc.
And the timing is just an example of how vague prophecies can be made to fit real outcomes. So long as the Romans achieved at least one victory in a 3-9 year span, you consider the prophecy to be true, even though the war wasn't won until about 15 years after the prediction.
A list of semi-true prophecies do not invalidate one false one, it's the other way around. All of the Islamic prophecies much be unequivocally true and provable, which i already know they are not, in order for any of them to be taken seriously. I was more curious to see if you could produce even one that met up to reasonable standards of proof and accuracy.
At least you admitted that it is possible for the koran mentioning the lowest land to be a divine revelation.
I was more expressing once again my astonishment that the god of the whole of creation squanders his words on topographical descriptions. It just seems odd that a god who made billions of universes is so interested in talking about the lowest point on planet earth to a bunch of 2000-year-dead desert savages. The same way i think that the rules regarding shellfish and pork indicate that there is no god, and, if there is, he's a weird little control-freak. Like, 'let me interrupt the sculpting of space, time, and matter to lay down the law of haraam eating habits to some barbaric nomads on one random planet.
As I said in my other reply, The Prophet Muhammad prophesized the conquest of Egypt. In the words of Encyclopedia Britannica:
“Amr… undertook the invasion in 639 with a small army of some 4,000 men (later reinforced). With what seems astonishing speed the Byzantine forces were routed and had withdrawn from Egypt by 642… Various explanations have been given for the speed with which the conquest was achieved.”
Various explanations like that the "small army" was "reinforced" to be the largest army in the region? And given that this happened after the prediction and after his death, couldn't you also say that Muhammad less predicted the invasion of Egypt and more caused it by predicting it?
How is this? The Prophet Muhammad prophesized the conquest of Egypt. In the words of Encyclopedia Britannica:
“Amr… undertook the invasion in 639 with a small army of some 4,000 men (later reinforced). With what seems astonishing speed the Byzantine forces were routed and had withdrawn from Egypt by 642… Various explanations have been given for the speed with which the conquest was achieved.”
The Prophet predicted the caliphate and martyrdom of Uthman
According to an authentic narration, the Prophet, upon him be peace and blessings, declared:
‘Uthman will be killed while reading the Qur’an. God will dress him in a shirt but they will desire to remove it from him."
By this saying, he meant that ‘Uthman would become Caliph but his deposition would be sought, and finally he would be martyred while reading the Qur’an. This happened exactly as he predicted.
The Prophet predicted the conquest of Istanbul
13. Again, according to an authentic narration, the Prophet, upon him be peace and blessings, declared:
Surely, Constantinople (Istanbul) will be conquered (by my community); how blessed the commander who will conquer it, and how blessed his army.
He thus foretold the conquest of Istanbul by Muslims, and indicated the high spiritual rank of Sultan Mehmed, the Conqueror, and the virtuousness of his army. What he foretold took place centuries later.
He predicted the increase of the use of riba (usury/interest) so that no one will able to escape being tainted by it. This clearly the state of the world economy today.
The increase of sexual promiscuity, and new diseases that people had not herd of before spreading amongst them as a consequence of that. This is clear, with the arrival of AIDS, and other previously unheard of viruses.
The Prophet predicted the appearance of Mukhtar and Hajjaj
According to an authentic narration, the Prophet, upon him be peace and blessings, declared:
From the tribe of Thaqif will appear a liar who claims Prophethood and a blood-thirsty tyrant.
By this, he gave tidings of the notorious Mukhtar, who claimed Prophethood, and the criminal Hajjaj, who killed tens of thousands of people.
The Messenger predicted ‘Ammar’s martyrdom in a civil war
3. Bukhari, Muslim and Ahmad ibn Hanbal record:
During the construction of the Prophet’s Mosque in Madina, God’s Messenger, upon him be peace and blessings, told ‘Ammar:
What a pity O ‘Ammar, a rebellious group will kill you.
‘Ammar was killed in the Battle of Siffin by the supporters of Mu‘awiya, who rebelled against Caliph ‘Ali.
It would be foolish to not give these prophecies some kind probability that they are divine. just a bit of probability.
If you're a Muslim prophet and you predict that a Muslim army will take over a city, don't you think that influences the conquerors? Or the martyrs?
It would be foolish to not give these prophecies some kind probability that they are divine. just a bit of probability.
Which prophecies, though? You've shown me prophecies that are on-par with the predictions of literally any other religion or mythology that has predictions. Yours are no more accurate or specific or free from human influence than the predictions of Christians or Jews or even other, non-desert dogma religions. So which god is revealing these things, and why does he keep revealing things to people in different religions with equal measure?
All of those are predictions you can find fulfilled in other religions, as well. And i didn't write out an examination of each one because they all fall short for the usual reasons: they are not specific or accurate enough, they do not necessarily indicate divine revelation, and, in some cases, are open to be fulfilled by people who already believe the prophecy and want to see it fulfilled.
And come on. Muhammad predicting a false prophet is like Coke predicting Pepsi. He's just downplaying the competition that will inevitably come to exist.
he predicted the tribe he came form. Also you have this verse,: "[We] then formed the drop into a clot and formed the clot into a lump and formed the lump into bones and clothed the bones in flesh; and then brought him into being as another creature. Blessed be Allah, the Best of Creators! (Qur'an, 23:14)" describing embryology.
No one could have known about how the baby developed at the time, it was in the uterus itself and we just discovered it. He did not predict religious opposition from another local tribe, he said that there will be a bloody tyrant and a false prophet from that tribe.
Also if your religion and the corresponding prophecies are true, it shouldn't be so hard to furnish proof of this. They should all be accurate, specific, and have substantial reasonable evidence supporting them. What we have instead is a raft of guesswork that through sheer number of predictions is bound to stumble across something true from time to time. Islam has about the same success rate in this practice as Christianity. If either of these religions had accurate prophecies, it wouldn't be a matter of ferreting out the few predictions that, to some degree, came true. They should all be obviously and provably correct if the prophets were actually divinely enlightened.
There is no reason to think any god exists, therefore there is no reason to think that any god came down here and sacrificed himself to appease himself.
We have no reason to think Jesus actually existed.
You believe because you are ignorant and gullible in this area of your life - but you can be fixed if you do your homework.
I'm nothing if not a thoughtful atheist, but it's not skepticism that drove me from religion, but revulsion, and I absolutely refuse to let fear, the lowest of emotions and religions favorite trump card, to have any sway over my life when it comes to determining my religious beliefs. Fear of Judgement Day is just one more trick religion has to get us to submit, and while I'm not surprised it worked to control illiterate savages and barbarians thousands of years past, I'm astounded so many people in this day an age allow themselves to fall prey to Pascals Wager.
Francis Bacon is noted to have commented, “I had rather believe all the fables in the
legend, and the Talmud, and the alcoran (i.e. the Qur’an), than that this universal frame is without a mind.” He went on to comment, “God never wrought miracle to convince atheism, because his ordinary works convince it.”5 Worthy of contemplation is the fact that even the lowest elements of God’s creation, though perhaps ordinary works in His terms, are miracles in ours. Take the example of as tiny an animal as a spider. Does anybody really believe that such an extraordinarily intricate creature evolved from primordial soup? Just one of these little miracles can produce up to seven different kinds of silk, some as thin as the wavelength of visible light, but stronger than steel. Silks range from the elastic, sticky strands for entrapment to the non-adhesive drag-lines and frame threads, to the silk for wrapping prey, making the egg sac, etc. The spider can, on demand, not only manufacture its personal choice of the seven silks, but reabsorb, breakdown and remanufacture--self-recycling from the component elements. And this is only one small facet of the miracle of the spider.
So your entire argument for the existence of God is simply that humans find the world very complex? Simply because we cannot understand it without large amounts of research does not make anything supernatural.
I find that argument both spectacularly ignorant and spectacularly arrogant. Humans have explained the finer workings of spiders, they are understood, and no longer so amazing, if you but so made an effort to research them. It does not surprise me that those that look to religion for answers do not look anywhere else.
Secondly, it's arrogant, because you play human understanding as the crux between natural and supernatural. If you cannot understand it, that does not mean anything about the ontological origins of the object, or the world as a whole, it simply means you cannot understand it. To play such a massive dependence on human understanding is arrogance to the extreme.
And yet, mankind elevates itself to the heights of arrogance. A moment’s
reflection should incline human hearts to humility. Look at a building and a person thinks of the architect, at a sculpture and a person instantly comprehends an artist. But examine the elegant intricacies of creation, from the complexity and balance of nuclear particle physics to the uncharted vastness of space, and a person conceives of…nothing?
Surrounded by a world of synchronous complexities, we as mankind cannot even
assemble the wing of a gnat. And yet the entire World and all the Universe exists in a
state of perfect orchestration as a product of random accidents which molded cosmic
chaos into balanced perfection? Some vote chance, others, creation.
You are talking about things that we build and make... obviously those things have creators. But you could admire beauty in a lava rock, the result of a bunch of explosive heat and pressure from the earths core, and not tie the rock the the volcano quite so readily as you would a painter to a piece of art. It's the differences between coming from something - having an origin, and being created.
I don't think incompetence and ignorance on mankind's part is arrogance. I think asserting false answers because you know many people will cling to an easy explanation, as religion does, is arrogance, and i think it should be held to the same standards of proof that a scientific claim would be, and, when being sold to the sheep, any claim of salvation should be investigated for potential fraud to the same standards that we hold our salesmen and merchants.
There is a reason to think that God exists because of the price He paid for us at the cross. Also there was eyewitnesses that saw Jesus when He was alive and saw His miracles and 500 witnesses saw Jesus when He rose from the grave.
You believe because you are ignorant and gullible in this area of your life - but you can be fixed if you do your homework.
I think you need to do your homework and find out if God exists and come up with lame excuses thinking that God doesn't exist. I have already done my homework and found out that God does exist. I have already done my part now its time to do your part.
You just said there's a reason to believe gods exist, but then start talking about something that doesn't give us any knowledge of the existence of gods.
Sorry, but the Buybull does not have eyewitness testimony, just because it says it does.
There is really no reason to think Jesus even existed, either.
There is no evidence to study that shows there is a deity, so there is nothing for me to do "homework" on.
You haven't found out any god exists. You merely irrationally believe in one.
I do know that a God exists because the Bible says that there was eyewitnesses. I guess to you eyewitnesses don't count as evidence. Well what about the newspapers? They saw what happened and wrote it down on paper. I guess the newspaper people lied because according to you eyewitnesses don't count as evidence.
The fact that many of mankind fail to make sense of certain aspects of this life
should not dissuade from belief in God. The duty of man is not to question or deny the
attributes or presence of God, and not to incline to arrogance through professing to be
able to do a better job, but rather to accept human station in this life and do the best that can be done with what we’ve been given. By analogy, the fact that a person does not like the way the boss does things at work, and fails to understand the decisions he makes, does not negate his existence. Rather, each person’s duty is to fulfill a job description in order to be paid and promoted. Similarly, failure to grasp or approve of the way God orders creation does not negate His existence. Rather, humankind should recognize with humility that, unlike the workplace boss, who may be wrong, God by definition is of absolute perfection, always right and never wrong. Humankind should bow down to Him in willing submission and in recognition that failure to understand His design on our part does not reflect error on His part. Rather, He is The Lord and Master of Creation and we are not, He knows all and we do not, He orders all affairs according to His perfect attributes, and we simply remain His subjects, along for the ride of our lives.
The duty of man is not to question or deny the attributes or presence of God,
If god really exists, shouldn't he welcome sustained investigation? If he's got nothing to hide, like, say, the fact he's a lying sadist or the fact he doesn't exist, what does he have to fear from people examining his actions and questioning his existence? If i were a god, i would much prefer to have followers who intelligently and logically my concluded existence, and then assessed my past and present action to determine if i was worth following. Blind, unexamined faith is the last thing i would want from my followers, unless, of course, i wasn't real. In that case it would be very much to my benefit for my clergy to dissuade people from questioning my actions or presence.
Who told you that God does not welcome sustained investigation?
God says
41:53
We will show them Our Signs in the universe, and in their own selves, until it becomes manifest to them that this (the Qur'ân) is the truth. Is it not sufficient in regard to your Lord that He is a Witness over all things?
also God says
23:80
And it is He Who gives life and causes death, and His is the alternation of night and day. Will you not then understand?
81
Nay, but they say the like of what the men of old said.
82
They said: "When we are dead and have become dust and bones, shall we be resurrected indeed?
83
"Verily, this we have been promised, - we and our fathers before (us)! This is only the tales of the ancients!"
84
Say: "Whose is the earth and whosoever is therein? If you know!"
and Gosd says:
36:77
Does not man see that We have created him from Nutfah (mixed male and female discharge — semen drops). Yet behold! he (stands forth) as an open opponent.
78
And he puts forth for Us a parable, and forgets his own creation. He says: "Who will give life to these bones after they are rotten and have become dust?"
79
Say: (O Muhammad SAW) "He will give life to them Who created them for the first time! And He is the All-Knower of every creation!"
80
He, Who produces for you fire out of the green tree, when behold! You kindle therewith.
81
Is not He, Who created the heavens and the earth Able to create the like of them? Yes, indeed! He is the All-Knowing Supreme Creator.
82
Verily, His Command, when He intends a thing, is only that He says to it, "Be!" and it is!
Who told you that God does not welcome sustained investigation?
You did. I headlined the thing you are replying to with it.
Scripture really has given you a lot to say for it, hasn't it? I don't read scripture when people post it unless I'm discussing scripture specifically. All other times, i recognize it as scripture (the numbers are very helpful for that) and discount it as ancient, false, man-made drivel that people allow extraordinary influence over their lives.
The duty of man is not to question or deny the attributes or presence of God, and not to incline to arrogance through professing to be able to do a better job, but rather to accept human station in this life and do the best that can be done with what we’ve been given.
Yes I said that before and I say it again beacause you can't question and deny the unseen but you can investigate the seen signs that makes you feel and know the unseen.
And with the analogy example given, you seem to leave your real job given to you by the boss and started negating his existence.
There you go again. Why cant we question or deny something that's as unseen as any evidence supporting it? Why cant we question if it's even really there, or, if it is there, question its attributes?
I dont understand that analogy at all. My boss is real and my job was something i entered into under contract, knowingly and willingly.
In regards to that analogy, I would potentially deny the existence of my boss if i had never seen him, touched him, heard him or otherwise interacted at all with him or anything of him and, importantly, if my boss was also something unlikely.
I argue religion two separate ways, one of them assuming god does exist. It is through this medium that i express my distaste at the way he does things, not by the other, which is denying his existence. So I dont disbelieve in god because i dislike the way he does things, i disbelieve in god andif he is real, i very much disapprove of the way he's been running things. Two separate notions.
Why are you talking about gender? The fact is that parents are the ones that give life. So why are you talking about gender, it's not like the gender determines if it's alive or not.
So what? You are born because of your parents. So what if they can't choose the gender of the baby, it's still a living being created by the parents. It's not like the gender of a baby determines if it's alive or not.
OK, this is ignorant even for a fanatic religious. Who gave we all the life were our parents. They made sex. One of our father's spermatozoon penetrated in one of our mother's ovules. The DNA was combined and we were created. The sex of the baby is determined by the combination of DNAs. No God found.
This is part of a lecture I got from Schroeder " if it is the laws of nature and not God that produce the universe, then we have a problem because many of the theories which would allow quantum tunneling, or quantum fluctuation in a totally abstract not peculiar potential field, to compress itself and become a universe. Many aspects of that theory, although possibly not all, but many aspects of that theory, require the universe that is created to be a closed universe. That is, space will be curved to close back on itself. Not like a balloon physically, but that space itself curves back in on itself. That means a super heavy universe. All of the data imply at the moment that the universe is not super heavy, in fact it lacks in the physical region, at least a fact by a factor of 10, the amount of mass required to produce this universe. So that makes a problem if it is indeed the laws of nature, it may require some other understanding then quantum tunneling."
Gerald Scroeder argues from incredulity, and arrogance, he may be a very intelligent man, but anyone that tries to mesh scientific ideas with the Torah or Bible, just to make them fit, needs to go and read about what science is. I'm actually sick of people using science as an alternative to religion, or as a means to either disprove or prove a God exists.
The point of science is discovery, the word itself means knowledge, if a discovery is made, verified and peer reviewed and it happens to contradict religious teachings, well that's just tough doo-doo. Trying to force science to fit pre-existing ideas, simply because you don't like what it is telling you, is injurious to progress. The Gap finding and filling ethos of men like this is a testament to the sort of dark age thinking regression that seems to be permeating.
If you don't understand something, don't go looking for catch all gap fillers, Schroeder is lucky enough to be intelligent and has the great opportunity of studying in this field, yet he shits while standing on the shoulders of the Giants that provided him with the knowledge he now bends.
I know this is more of a rant than an argument, and for that I apologize, it just irks me when people do this sort of thing.
If I'm ever around that way I'll swing by, and fly into a prize hissy fit, spitting chunks of half eaten bagel into the museum curator's face, while simultaneously defecating on their monuments.
you must be referring to the 6 days biblical clock idea. Well either way, this is a different lecture he gave, not one biblical or Torah verse. So what do you think of his argument against the laws of nature?
no, here he says that if quantum mechanics produced the universe then it would create a closed universe , but theuniverse is not closed and he syas that this is a problem
The term closed universe, what really is he stating by this, he's known for inaccurate use of science, and I think this is one of those examples. Quantum mechanics does not produce anything, it is a model that explains systems and energy changes in terms of quanta, quantum tunneling is not incompatible, it's just not fully understood with intuition, one just has to accept that the figures don't lie. Quantum mechanics, makes claims that are difficult to take sometimes, because they defy what we know intuitively from our experience of the mechanical world. There is no full explanation of the start of the universe and none such to explain the end, what is certain though is that using something like quantum tunneling because it seems on the face of it to defy logic, one simply has to remember Heisenberg and his uncertainty principle.
I didn't say it did, but definition of activity at the level particles is difficult because of uncertainty, but it and wave-particle duality are central to an understanding of quantum tunneling.
Furthermore touting physical laws regarding the behavior of anything now can't account for events at the "singularity" as the known physical laws didn't exist at the time or not in their current form anyway.
There were gods and godesses. There were many gods. There were counsel of gods. There were sons of gods and godesses. There were angels, watchers and guardians, in the bible they were watchman. There were sons of gods as fallen angels.
There are gods and there is one god, the chief ruler of all and the Lord of the command on earth as the Lord of the War. There were counsel of gods in heavens. There is one god:The King of the gods, the father of all the gods. The god appointed the sons of god (two angels who ruled the command on earth) the other god is the lord of the earth.
Immanuel named Jesus was the son of god "The Lord of the Earth". Jesus suceeded on his mission to create peace on earth by sacrificing himself. He went comma on the cross and later the angels with the used of "emiter" raised him from half death and transformed back to life. The water that was given by the guard who kneeled and asked forgiveness to Jesus was not actually water, it was some sort of vineyard that paralyzed the body and numb so Jesus will fall in a deep asleep, the only way to be saved from permanent death and be taken by Hades.
Did you noticed three of them were crucified but only two was cut off but Jesus was spare and did not cut off?
The real God is the father of mankind, who created Adam and Eve, the creator of all the living on earth and heavens. He is the almighty god who send Jesus on earth. It was his own seed and spirit formed Jesus. With the success of Jesus mission on mankind he became the Kings of all Kings, our savior and our Lord of the Earth. Jesus is the brotherhood of all mankind. Jesus is the son of god; the Lord of the earth and therefore he is god. Mankind is also god higher than the angels but as a brotherhood only and servants our role to Jesus whom our king and son of god in the name of Jesus our saviour.
Who made god? You like to use logic when it suits you, and if it's so irrational that something can come from nothing, how can god (something) have spontaneously sprung into existence? Certainly god is more complex than this universe, and if complexity implies creation then something even more complex must've made god. The notion that because something exists it must have a creator leads us down a long line of god creating us, and a god creating our god, and a god creating the god the created our god, yet another god that created that god, and so on.
Inability to comprehend is not a reason to put faith in magic. Im not sure if I believe all the notions asserted in the big bang theory, and I am certainly not scientifically literate enough to truly understand it, and as such I dont put any blind faith in the idea. It's a theory.
The idea that the universe was created ex nihilo (from nothing) is inherent in most religious ideologies, mainly in ancient Greek mythology. The evidence for the Big Bang is far more convincing than the existence of any kind of God, gods or imaginary friends.. whatever you want to call them. The evidence lies in the ratio of hydrogen to helium 76:24, microwave radiation and red shift (the idea that the universe is continually expanding). About three minutes after the Big Bang, nucleosynthesis began which is very important because it allowed the temperrature of the universe and its density to decrease below that which is required for nuclear fusionn. It encompassed the entire universe lasting about seventeen minutes in totaland most of all it prevented the heavier elements (like beryllium) from coming to life whilst simultaneously allowing unburned light elements to exist unhindered (such as deuterium). Having said that, the Big Bang is after all, still only a theory but like I said, it is more believable than the existence of a man in the sky.
Just because you don't agree with one theory doesn't mean that you won't like any others. I subscribe to the cyclical bigbang-bigcrunch theory, and infinite time. It makes sense to me.
I believe that there is a force that exists outside of our four dimensions that created our existence. I do not believe that the physics of the 4 dimensional world can explain the spontaneous creation of the universe.
This "God," however, cannot be the immoral God of the Bible or the Quran. There is no evidence of his direct intervention within our lives either, so for all intensive purposes he doesn't "exist" in a manner of speaking, but all evidence I have seen indicates that he must.
I use the term dimension, you choose to ascribe reality other terms. If you'd like me to rephrase using your terms then here you go:
I believe that the evidence shows that the existence of particles, energies, forces and change between them cannot have come to exist without some external unknown. I believe that the creation of something so complex requires intent, so therefore I believe there is evidence for a creator or God.
Evidence also shows that he doesn't involve himself in our existence other than the creation and that he doesn't listen to prayers, doesn't require worship, doesn't have a hell to send us to, and basically doesn't matter.
Evidence also shows that he doesn't involve himself in our existence other than the creation and that he doesn't listen to prayers, doesn't require worship, doesn't have a hell to send us to, and basically doesn't matter.
I take you mean by evidence that people are never answered, and no one is sent to nowhere (if it's lights out, it's lights out). That is also the evidence that he doesn't exist.
No, it isn't evidence that he/she/it doesn't exist, it is evidence that he/she/it doesn't get involved. Inaction is a subset of nonexistence and all the evidence provides is a sign of inaction, not the greater nonexistence. I have already provided my reason and evidence for believing there is a God, but to clarify: the existent systems of matter and energy indicate that neither can create something from nothingness (conservation of mass and energy) and the fact is that we have something that from what we can see, nothingness was before it. That requires an act of something that was not matter or energy, and to me also presupposes a deliberate action. It could be a programmer and we are his VR people or it could be an alien or a God, but it seems to be borne out by the evidence.
No, it isn't evidence that he/she/it doesn't exist, it is evidence that he/she/it doesn't get involved.
You haven't provided any evidence of its existence, neither can you because there is no evidence to its existence.
People hoping for action from something that will never provide it (most probably since it does not exist) hints at lunacy.
Inaction is a subset of nonexistence and all the evidence provides is a sign of inaction, not the greater nonexistence.
Nonexistence is nonexistence. If something doesn't exist, it does not exist, there are no different levels to it. Since there is no action by it and since there is no proof to its existence then it is far more logical and reasonable to consider it not existing.
the existent systems of matter and energy indicate that neither can create something from nothingness
They all came from something. Perhaps a different state at which they are now, or some energy collided with others thus creating a reaction that caused our universe. There really is no proof to any of it and I doubt there ever will be, not in the extent of human existence (we aren't exactly working toward our long-term survival). And once our universe ends it might change to a different state again.
The evidence I provide are the laws of thermodynamics and the big bang theory.
They show that matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only transferred from one state to the other. They show that the universe had a beginning.
People hoping for action from something that will never provide it (most probably since it does not exist) hints at lunacy.
I didn't say I hoped for any action whatsoever. Ad hominems are hints of weak minds.
Nonexistence is nonexistence.
True
If something doesn't exist, it does not exist, there are no different levels to it.
Also true
Let me clarify what I meant. The perception of inaction is a subset of the proof towards non-existence, and cannot be used in and of itself as proof of non-existence because there are counterexamples.
Since there is no action by it and since there is no proof to its existence then it is far more logical and reasonable to consider it not existing.
No, since there is no action by it it is reasonable to consider it does not act. There is, however, evidence of its existence and a single original act, the creation.
"They all came from something." Science has provided zero theories about how or what that have withstood any scrutiny whatsoever. You want to make the "something" be more "stuff" and I want to make the "something" be "an intelligent being."
Also, according to probability theory the fact is that we are far more likely to be constructs within a virtual reality system than actually be living in reality, so that means we have a creator (a programmer) that wrote the program and started us on our VR world.
Do any amount of study about the big bang and the consensus is that there was nothing before it.
The evidence is that there is no rules for creation within the system, and evidence that the system was created. The complexity of the system and its apparent purpose suggests intelligence in that creation. Does it prove that there is a God? I leave that to you, for me, it does.
They show that matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only transferred from one state to the other. They show that the universe had a beginning.
To me it shows that our universe's current state had a beginning. What was the previous state, if there was one, is not known and probably never will.
There is, however, evidence of its existence and a single original act, the creation.
There is no evidence of its existence and creation. Thoughts are not exactly evidence. We can come up with all kinds of concepts and stories. Everything we have come up with was originally an idea, until it was proven true or false.
I want to make the "something" be "an intelligent being."
So the intelligent being formed some preexisting energy into our universe? I suppose it could be possible, but there is no evidence.
Do any amount of study about the big bang and the consensus is that there was nothing before it.
Nothing our equipment can detect, perhaps. Nothing we can perceive from our universe, our, sort of, "frequency".
The evidence is that there is no rules for creation within the system, and evidence that the system was created. The complexity of the system and its apparent purpose suggests intelligence in that creation.
It could simply have been a natural occurrence, an accident. Like a rock colliding with Earth. Something that just happened.
To me, it's evidence of creation, to you it's not, as I said before. You believe that it is rational to suggest that a system which has zero methods for explaining its coming into being just simply "did" whilst I believe that we have several examples of systems being created by a being outside that system that correspond to the concept of God (think VR).
You believe that it is rational to suggest that a system which has zero methods for explaining its coming into being just simply "did"
I never said anything like that. Everything has methods for explaining and if doesn't it is easy to come up with some, but that does not mean they are real or that they will ever have any evidence supporting them.
That's almost similar to what I believe. I think there may be some genuine divine intervention in the bible, but it all sounds like they were demon deities to me. Jesus seemed to speak about a buddhic deity and Christians today talk about a trinity deity. It's confusing.
I believe in God because he is the almighty. It is with him that all things are possible. It is a sin called contentment to not believe in God. There is indisputable video evidence that God and Jesus exist. There is proof that God and Jesus exist because of miracles.
Yeah, God is super because he gave life? Well i guess hes also great, because he gave death. Oh what a wonderful being. SARCASM Jesus if you were born in a Islamic family, you wouldn't be coming out with this BULLSHIT what makes you think that YOUR god is the right one, there are loads of other religions all thinking that THEIR god is the real one. You're just like all those other ignorant morons.
There you go again, only thinking of your self. I am talking about the other so called Gods. How do you know which one to worship? How do you know, that whilst your worshiping your God, the Hindu God(s) are watching your sins?! Honestly, there is no way f knowing, i see no point in worshiping figments of peoples imagination just so i can think to myself, that death isn't the end.
I belive in it due to that it gives life more meaning. If we are just a natural thing then that, from what i understand, implies that when we die we are dead.
By beliveing in afterlife it gives this one a little bit more, so when your old you don't get depressed.
I'm 14 and live in the slums of [insert country]. My father died when I was young and my mother is sick. I work three jobs and barely am able to feed my two brothers. Some may ask why I believe in God. He put me in these miserable conditions, right? But it is all I have to look for. I can't make things change. I can't make others change. I can't just believe that things can never change. God will change them. I have to believe that he will.
Originally I believed simply because I was raised that way, but things happened in my life that made me question it. Then research was done and yes it was probably biased but to me its because of the research I did.
Well you see, the earth is old enough for evolution to happen once, yet the first micro organism somehow consisted of reproduction, why would any form of life think that it had to reproduce? It is like we know we are going to die. We know we are going to die, but did the first bacteria? There are a huge umber of other things a bacteria could have had but reproduction? It's so weird when you think about it. Again, why would any form of life have reproduction? It did not know it was going to die.
I seriously hope I did not sound stupid.
And we don't know what emotions are. I am not talking about stimulation in the brain, I am talking about the actual feeling, this is so mind-boggling.
Reproduction is a characteristic of life, along with energy use, growth,response and adaptation to environment and homeostasis . One on it's own is not life, there needs to be all seven, each part could have different origins.
If you think about what codes life contains, it all boils down to genetic material, i.e. Nucleic acids, DNA and RNA, it is the latter that is the most interesting, RNA, comes in several forms, and for the purpose of this argument the first most important RNA is cRNA, it is catalytic, in that it can catalyze it's own synthesisand also carry a code. There doesn't need to be life to have reproduction.
Now think about the way, lipids aggregate in an aqueous environment, i.e. they form micelles, and bi-layer lipids form liposomes, again, non living, but freely observable, as above.
In a primordial soup or some other harsher chemical environment, a liposome surrounded a cRNA, then you have a rudimentary cell, this cRNA will have a much better chance of survival than others, as it is kept safer from things that can denature it. So starts the explosive work of natural selection.
Now we can talk about other RNA, such as tRNA and rRNA, both of these still serve functions in every living thing on this planet. Say for example you have high presence of amino acids in our early environment, there is nothing stopping the joining of amino acids to RNA molecules, there would be myriad forms of RNA in this world, what if in a catalytic RNA generation the wrong nucleotides were placed, this happens all the time, with DNA, whose synthesis is much more strict, so it's no stretch of the logic. These amino acid holding RNA and some ribosomal RNA could begin synthesis of short rudimentary but functioning peptides, from here it's quite obvious that those that make the most functional peptides will survive. These will eventually create the multitudinous proteins we see today and probably in the same place that makes their bilayer coats, this is your first cell.
I think you misunderstood my argument i am talking bout the existence of reproduction itself, why is there? the idea is so random and out of the hat that I am going to divide myself so that life can go on. It's so frustrating to think about why? btw, your link linked me to google books.
I fully understood you argument, I thought it pertinent to explain the possibility of how a life form could come about, to have the properties that are defined of a living entity, without any of these properties there is no life, like a virus.
To ask why there is reproduction is to not take into account what life means, it can't be defined without it, but as I've shown it was possible before life. Reproduction is where natural selection can act, it is therefore why we exist.
Sorry about the link, google "neurochemistry of emotions"
No. Because my original argument was much longer. I wasn't referring to responses to other peoples arguments. It shows weakness if your main original argument for a debate is only a sentence long. That's only Factual in the debate world. And it doesn't matter how long it is because you didn't give much reason anyways. So any way you spin it it, it's a cheap very easy argument that children make. I'm not trying to be a jerk here these are just some of the fundamentals of debate. ..mate....
I wasn't referring to responses to other peoples arguments
Of this, I am well aware.
It shows weakness if your main original argument for a debate is only a sentence long.
How so, is the point not to get your message across as clear and concise as possible, I think I did that quite well.
What exactly is the point of fleshing out an argument that can be condensed into a sentence that is clearly understood.
The debate question was why do you believe/disbelieve in God?, my answer to this was that I had no reason to, if I had a reason, I'd be on the other side, if you have a reason, why not offer it as a rebuttal, instead of your pissy pedantry.
That's only Factual in the debate world.
What is only factual in the debate world? That you must construct long boring arguments to appease.
And it doesn't matter how long it is because you didn't give much reason anyways.
Because there is none, how are you not getting this?
So any way you spin it it, it's a cheap very easy argument that children make.
Well if you actually construct a dispute to my argument, I may be able to explain to you why your particular reasons are not in fact reasons to believe. If i was to go through each and every reason people believe, then my post would be a long
laborious read.
I'm not trying to be a jerk here
I don't think you need to try.
these are just some of the fundamentals of debate. ..mate....
No, this is the ridiculous ramblings of a person that took issue with a post on an internet website, if you wish to debate me, feel free, if you wish to annoy me because i don't conform to your flimsy definition of debate, well.. then you can lick my balls.
"How so, is the point not to get your message across as clear and concise as possible, I think I did that quite well.
What exactly is the point of fleshing out an argument that can be condensed into a sentence that is clearly understood.
The debate question was why do you believe/disbelieve in God?, my answer to this was that I had no reason to, if I had a reason, I'd be on the other side, if you have a reason, why not offer it as a rebuttal, instead of your pissy pedantry."
What part of "I Don't believe because" Don't you under stand? You completely ignored the word because. Did you not? Really answer the question; did you not?
"What is only factual in the debate world? That you must construct long boring arguments to appease."
No. The idea of a post being boring is completely new to our discussion. Why bring it up? Interesting.
"Well if you actually construct a dispute to my argument"
I'm the one with an actual post talking about what this debate is about. You dispute me. Bring it on.
"If i was to go through each and every reason people believe, then my post would be a long laborious read."
lol. "Laborious" if it's such an effort, such a chore, what are you doing on this site?
"this is the ridiculous ramblings of a person that took issue with a post"
Strangely enough, I don't follow you around, if you wish for me to read something point it out, this is an old debate.
What part of "I Don't believe because" Don't you under stand? You completely ignored the word because. Did you not? Really answer the question; did you not?
Oh my word you are retarded, I don't believe, because I have no reason to, is that better?
Let us discuss this for a second. Exactly what reasons can one come up with not to believe, the Burden of proof is in the hands of those making assertions.
I'm the one with an actual post talking about what this debate is about. You dispute me. Bring it on.
I'll have a rummage around later and formulate a dispute for your other post.
lol. "Laborious" if it's such an effort, such a chore, what are you doing on this site?
Are you stating that if I went to the bother of researching every claim made about God, and tagged on a argument, that you would read it all? Give me a break, barely anyone reads long posts on here, best to first engage someone, then you can hash it out.
The point of a this debate is to discuss reason if you don't have reason than you can't make much of an argument. You technically can and you did. But it's weak. Like I originally said.
"Exactly what reasons can one come up with not to believe"
That's what this debate is asking you.
"Are you stating that if I went to the bother of researching every claim made about God"
Stop there. Who ever ever said that you would have to do that?
Maybe in a different debate, this one is about God, or have you forgotten that.
The point of a this debate is to discuss reason
Are you debateleader?
if you don't have reason than you can't make much of an argument.
If there's no reason to believe, that is a reason to not believe.
That's what this debate is asking you.
Oh my, here we go again.
Stop there. Who ever ever said that you would have to do that?
This would be the logical way of explaining why I had no reason, it would entail refuting all reasons, instead, it is easier to state that there is no reason, and then dispute reasons people give, simples.
"Maybe in a different debate, this one is about God, or have you forgotten that."
The debate that me and you are having right now isn't. But you're trying to change what we're talking about because you're losing.
"Are you debateleader?"
No. ?
"Oh my, here we go again."
Yeah.. circles. I know, another sign of losing. You got backed into a corner and now you're repeating your arguments more than once.
"This would be the logical way of explaining why I had no reason, it would entail refuting all reasons,"
No it wouldn't! That's stupid. Again nobody ever suggested that you'd have to list every single argument in existence.
"it is easier to state that there is no reason, and then dispute reasons people give, simples."
I get that you wan't to work from the outside and dispute this debate. There's nothing wrong with that.
It's just that your original post is weak and lacks substance.
"No.VS lol are you sure? Speak for yourself.
Now why would I point this out?"
Good question. My not paying much attention to weak debaters has nothing to do with you trying to speak for everyone. I read long posts all the time. It shows immaturity if you're not willing to.
Either stick to the topic or start a new debate, please, your entire argument here is based on your arbitrary definition of debate.
You still have not come up with one reason why I should believe in God, why is this?
I'm also not trying to change the topic we are discussing, we have already moved quite far away from the debate topic. I think it's funny that you believe you have me backed in to a corner and that I'm losing. Losing what? My original post has more points than yours. This is gone beyond ridiculous.
Furthermore, your definition of a weak debater is also arbitrary, I'd say that within a debate, sticking to the topic is fundamental, which is something I see you are unable to do. I have only engaged you in this in order to explain to you that long winded arguments do not make good arguments just because they are long.
If your only goal is to nit-pick then please piss off. If you wish to get back on topic fell free, I shall engage you in debate.
It was not my intention to give you the impression that I do not read longer posts, I do, especially when they are relevant.
What you have told me in summary is this:
1,I am a weak debater, because, by your definition my post was too short.
2,If I did construct a longer argument you wouldn't read it simply because it was mine.
3, I wouldn't have to refute all arguments for reasons to believe in a God, even though I've stated I've no reason to, because obviously that would be stupid.
1 and 2 contradict each other, and 3 contradicts itself.
The debate we're having is different than the debate we are in. I guess we could have this debate elsewhere but I don't really want to. All of the sudden you care about the semantics of this website. Right.
"your entire argument here is based on your arbitrary definition of debate."
Debate Definition:
"A formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward."
Your "argument" was not formal. And as I said it was weak. This is what we're talking about. I know you don't like it. But who cares. (:
Argument Definition:(yeah you can make fun of me for using google)
"An exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one: "I've had an argument with my father".
A reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong."
The second definition in particular applies here. By this definition you literally had no argument. Ouch.
"I'm also not trying to change the topic we are discussing, we have already moved quite far away from the debate topic."
Yes you are! And "we" where never discussing the topic of God we were discussing the legitimacy of your argument.
"I think it's funny that you believe you have me backed in to a corner and that I'm losing."
I think it's funny too. (;
"My original post has more points than yours."
Really?..Explain.
"Furthermore, your definition of a weak debater is also arbitrary, I'd say that within a debate, sticking to the topic is fundamental, which is something I see you are unable to do."
What?! You and me are having(and have been having this whole time) a completely separate discussion. What a cop out.
"in order to explain to you that long winded arguments do not make good arguments just because they are long."
When did I ever say that? When?
"It was not my intention to give you the impression that I do not read longer posts"
"barely anyone reads long posts on here" -you. That's a little misleading then.
"1,I am a weak debater, because, by your definition my post was too short.
2,If I did construct a longer argument you wouldn't read it simply because it was mine.
3, I wouldn't have to refute all arguments for reasons to believe in a God, even though I've stated I've no reason to, because obviously that would be stupid.
1 and 2 contradict each other, and 3 contradicts itself."
1. It doesn't have to be my definition.
2. Oh come on now. I love reading your arguments. (; This isn't personal! Ok I did say no when you asked me if I would read it but it was a joke. (;
3. The thing is that a proper argument would be stating why you have no reason to. Heck it doesn't even have to be a long post(well... longer than a sentance but you get what I'm saying) just give reason for not having a reason.
It's like this;
I have no reason to go to the grocery store because I have food in my refrigerator. It wouldn't make any sense to go to the store right now. I don't have any room in my refrigerator. By the time I ate my other groceries my new ones would go bad. etc etc. Get it?
-and there could be lots of reasons. That's just a tiny example. Notice how I didn't have to list every single argument in existence why going to the store isn't necessary.
All of the sudden you care about the semantics of this website. Right.
I never stopped.
"A formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward."
Where does it say here that an argument can not be one sentence long? Go back to sleep buddy.
Your "argument" was not formal. So to make it formal I would need some empirical evidence right? And as I said it was weak. Well it's a good job I have your amazing intellect around to keep me on the straight and narrow This is what we're talking about. I know you don't like it. But who cares. (: What don't I like, mate, I don't care.
A reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong."
I gave you a reason, but you don't think it is one, yet you don't dispute it.
By this definition you literally had no argument. Ouch.
I gave you a reason.
Like Laplace said to Napoleon, when quizzed about why he wrote a book about the Universe and included no mention of God, "I have no need for that hypothesis"
Really?..Explain.
This argument that you dislike has 8 points, how many has yours?
"barely anyone reads long posts on here" -you. That's a little misleading then.
It's not misleading at all, I didn't include myself, and as I've been using this site for over three years, I've come to notice things like this.
1. It doesn't have to be my definition.
Yes it does mate.
2. Oh come on now. I love reading your arguments. (; This isn't personal! Ok I did say no when you asked me if I would read it but it was a joke. (;
OK then.
The thing is that a proper argument would be stating why you have no reason to.
There is no reason to disbelieve outside of no reason to believe, the point of the matter is that presenting scientific data doesn't matter a bit, as none of it is out to disprove God, it may contradict known dogma but that doesn't really matter either, as it can be explained away through some form of logical loophole that has no real empirical ground, and faithful listen to what they're told, not what they're shown.
Heck it doesn't even have to be a long post(well... longer than a sentance but you get what I'm saying)
Sigh
just give reason for not having a reason.
Nice.
I have no reason to go to the grocery store because I have food in my refrigerator. Get it?
I have no reason to believe in God, because there is no reason to believe.
-and there could be lots of reasons. That's just a tiny example. Notice how I didn't have to list every single argument in existence why going to the store isn't necessary.
What you are doing is showing something verifiable, it has reasons to do something or not do it, going to the shop is an observable act, God is not, there can not be a reason with out something concrete to match it to, I could if I wished talk about one God, but there are many, and none with any evidence outside books. So without something substantial there really isn't much claim.
If however you have a reason why I should believe then that's a point to begin arguing.
"Where does it say here that an argument can not be one sentence long?"
Where did I say that an argument had to be more than one sentence long?
"So to make it formal I would need some empirical evidence right?"
No. You'd just need to explain your little statement.
"Well it's a good job I have your amazing intellect around to keep me on the straight and narrow"
Thanks but is it working?
"What don't I like, mate,"
Fighting a losing battle. But who does?
"I gave you a reason, but you don't think it is one, yet you don't dispute it."
What did I not dispute?
"I gave you a reason."
Okay we're talking about when you said "No reason to" or however you said it. Do you get that? You have yet to give reason to your lazy a$$ argument. Or lack thereof.
"Like Laplace said to Napoleon, when quizzed about why he wrote a book about the Universe and included no mention of God, "I have no need for that hypothesis""
But you weren't writing a book (I'd be a short one (: ) You were answering a question. ..by saying you had no reason to answer it.. which is fine but I wouldn't show up to a discussion about a topic that I didn't have reason to discuss. Would you?- oh...yeah
"This argument that you dislike has 8 points, how many has yours?"
I don't know but I'm pretty confident with my arguments I don't feel the need to count. Why do you ask?
"It's not misleading at all, I didn't include myself, and as I've been using this site for over three years, I've come to notice things like this."
I wasn't playing gotcha. I'm simply saying it's misleading because the reader has to assume that you're in the barely anyone category.
It would be human nature to assume that the majority does or doesn't do something because one usually does or doesn't. -Bit I do realize that is not necessarily the case. In other words I believe you.
"Yes it does mate."
Why?
"There is no reason to disbelieve outside of no reason to believe, the point of the matter is that presenting scientific data doesn't matter a bit, as none of it is out to disprove God, it may contradict known dogma but that doesn't really matter either, as it can be explained away through some form of logical loophole that has no real empirical ground, and faithful listen to what they're told, not what they're shown."
Now this is what would have been a much stronger argument rather than the one we've been talking about.
"I have no reason to believe in God, because there is no reason to believe."
K that's fine but it's just simply weak not to expound. You clearly have that ability because you've done it. What I'm saying is that you could have started out with a stronger argument.
"going to the shop is an observable act, God is not"
Believing in God is an observable fact. Infact some of the arguments you have made are observations about christian people.
"If however you have a reason why I should believe then that's a point to begin arguing."
That has little to do with anything. This debate as a whole is not about convincing anyone to believe anything. Let alone our conversation.
Where did I say that an argument had to be more than one sentence long?
Is that not the point of your entire hissy.
No. You'd just need to explain your little statement.
How many times do you need to be told this, explaining that statement would require several books' worth of info, better to argue individual disputes.
Thanks but is it working?
Sarcasm
Fighting a losing battle. But who does?
Chopping apart my sentences to create strawman arguments, good tactic for winning.
What did I not dispute?
You haven't given me a single reason to believe in God.
Okay we're talking about when you said "No reason to" or however you said it. Do you get that? You have yet to give reason to your lazy a$$ argument. Or lack thereof.
Yep, that's what we are talking about.
But you weren't writing a book (I'd be a short one
Doesn't matter, have you ever written a book? I have.
You were answering a question. ..by saying you had no reason to answer it..
NO, yet again, I wasn't answering a question by stating I had no reason to answer it, I answered a question about why I didn't believe in God, and contrary to your opinion, no reason to is a valid answer to that. If the question had been what arguments exist against the existence of a particular God, then I could have expanded more.
which is fine but I wouldn't show up to a discussion about a topic that I didn't have reason to discuss. Would you?- oh...yeah
Where is your valid argument?
I don't know but I'm pretty confident with my arguments I don't feel the need to count. Why do you ask?
Because, I stated earlier that you were the one calling my argument weak, but mine had more consensus points. I don't usually care for the points, but I thought it pertinent to highlight it here.
Why?
Because Obviously I don't agree with you.
Now this is what would have been a much stronger argument rather than the one we've been talking about.
But this argument had a point to argue, it was to show you that in one instance there was no reason to argue the point.
K that's fine but it's just simply weak not to expound. You clearly have that ability because you've done it. What I'm saying is that you could have started out with a stronger argument.
I have constructed many arguments on here when the topic so fits, but this one was too broad.
Believing in God is an observable fact. Infact some of the arguments you have made are observations about christian people.
But one can't dispute that Christians' believe, why they believe is the topic of the argument, and this is something that needs looking into, but again there are far more Gods than the Christian God.
That has little to do with anything. This debate as a whole is not about convincing anyone to believe anything. Let alone our conversation.
It has a lot to do with it, you provide a reason to believe and I try dispute your argument, I'd never set out to convince anyone to change their mind, but it is good to discuss matters such as this, it enriches perspective.
No. "had to be" implies not allowed to. I never said that you weren't allowed to post a weak argument.
"How many times do you need to be told this, explaining that statement would require several books' worth of info, better to argue individual disputes."
It doesn't matter how many times because it doesn't make sense. You're wanting one extreme or the other. Either a one sentence argument or a huge thesis covering every single aspect of the issue. Why are you looking at it that way?
"You haven't given me a single reason to believe in God."
You so want me too because I can't. That's so low. It has nothing to do with this debate or our little debate. You wish it did so then you could win. Sure if you're loosing an argument make it about something els right?!
"Doesn't matter, have you ever written a book? I have."
How long is it?
"If the question had been what arguments exist against the existence of a particular God, then I could have expanded more."
You can always expand more. Always. You're argument isn't invalid its just astoundingly weak. Us going back and forth like this may create the illusion that I'm making a huge deal out of this. I'm really not. It's just that I'm right and you keep putting false words in my mouth.
"Where is your valid argument?"
My arguments on the other side we already talked about this.
"but mine had more consensus points"
Look at my response to the debate on the other side and look at your original response! Shall we compare the two?...
"Because Obviously I don't agree with you."
Then you also don't agree with the textbook definition. ..
"But one can't dispute that Christians' believe, why they believe is the topic of the argument, and this is something that needs looking into"
Yeah because you were so willing to look into why you don't believe. right
"but again there are far more Gods than the Christian God."
Yes there are many gods that people believe in. Is that supposed to strike some kind of chord with me? Not sure were you were getting at.
"It has a lot to do with it,"
How so?
"you provide a reason to believe and I try dispute your argument"
No reason to. (: Now if you would like to ask me why I believe-the actual topic of this debate (NOT WHY EVERYONE SHOULD BELIEVE) then I would again direct you to my argument on the other side.
"I'd never set out to convince anyone to change their mind"
It doesn't matter how many times because it doesn't make sense.
Strangely, it's only you that seems to think this.
You're wanting one extreme or the other.
And you're wanting incomplete arguments, sorry, not going to happen.
Either a one sentence argument or a huge thesis covering every single aspect of the issue. Why are you looking at it that way?
I'm not.
You so want me too because I can't. That's so low.
Is this why you jumped on my argument, because it made you feel insignificant?
Calling me low for wanting to end this farce and get back to the debate, is a bit much, no?
If you can't provide a reason, fair enough.
You wish it did so then you could win.
Are you stating that I would win if we were debating God?
Sure if you're loosing an argument make it about something els right?!
I hope the irony in this is not lost on you.
How long is it?
All three of them are one sentence long each, riveting stuff really.
You can always expand more. Always.
But, why should I?
You're argument isn't invalid its just astoundingly weak.
Well we've established that you think so.
Us going back and forth like this may create the illusion that I'm making a huge deal out of this. I'm really not.
Then stop.
I'm really not. It's just that I'm right and you keep putting false words in my mouth.
What the hell is a false word?
I'm merely pointing out the gaping flaw in your argument, and that is that you haven't a leg to stand on.
My arguments on the other side we already talked about this.
Yes, indeed, spirituality and knowing yourself from personal experience or something like that, I technically have no dispute for that, I mean, You either know yourself or you don't. If you feel like this is the best for you then that's great.
Look at my response to the debate on the other side and look at your original response! Shall we compare the two?...
Work away.
Then you also don't agree with the textbook definition.
As wielded by you, not by how I read it.
Yeah because you were so willing to look into why you don't believe. right
Indeed, because the Christian God is a good starting point, one where the ideas presented by this specific dogma can be challenged.
Yes there are many gods that people believe in. Is that supposed to strike some kind of chord with me? Not sure were you were getting at.
I was highlighting it, in order to hopefully communicate to you the enormity of an argument on this.
How so?
I have no desire to keep repeating myself.
No reason to. (: Now if you would like to ask me why I believe-the actual topic of this debate (NOT WHY EVERYONE SHOULD BELIEVE) then I would again direct you to my argument on the other side.
What you're saying is you've no reason to believe, you just do, is it?
You my friend are Atheist to almost every God, I just go one God further, can you explain to me why you don't believe in Zeus or Thor or any other God? Probably not, you just don't, right? Well I feel like all these Gods need including.
You display the Christian "Yahwahocentrism" , because you believe in the God of the Bible, that he is the only one worth debating.
"Strangely, it's only you that seems to think this."
I'm sure there are plenty of people who believe that in a debate it is best to post a detailed argument with reason without going overboard and having to list every reason in existence. ..This is obvious.
"And you're wanting incomplete arguments, sorry, not going to happen."
What! lol Your definition of an incomplete argument is an argument that doesn't consist of "all reasons". This is getting weird. All I'm wanting (and keep in mind I'm not telling anyone what to do) is a detailed argument with reason.
"I'm not."
According to everything you've been saying you are.
"Is this why you jumped on my argument, because it made you feel insignificant?"
No. I told you why. You wish.
"Calling me low for wanting to end this farce and get back to the debate, is a bit much, no?
If you can't provide a reason, fair enough."
But that's not why I called you low.... Nice try though.
"Are you stating that I would win if we were debating God?"
Great question. You'd have to define win. But in my post on the other side (that you haven't disputed yet) I state very clearly that it isn't a good topic of debate. And I gave pretty good reason too. BUT- if you want to discuss that lets do it elsewhere I don't want you changing the subject. (;
"I hope the irony in this is not lost on you."
I know it's so hard for you. But could you explain that for me? It's a lot of work I know.
"All three of them are one sentence long each, riveting stuff really."
LOL ok I'll give you that one. (;
"But, why should I?"
Because that's whatchya do in a debate.
"What the hell is a false word?"
That's when you say "your saying this" When I'm really not. Like when you were saying that I was saying you weren't allowed to post a one sentence argument.
"Work away."
That's what I thought.
"As wielded by you, not by how I read it."
It seemed pretty straight forward to me. How did you see it exactly?
"Indeed, because the Christian God is a good starting point, one where the ideas presented by this specific dogma can be challenged."
yeah... So you say you have no reason to challenge them ..right? Then why not explain just a little bit about why you see no reason to challenge them. Instead of 'just because'.
"I was highlighting it, in order to hopefully communicate to you the enormity of an argument on this."
If you write a paper and the teacher wants it to be no shorter or longer than a page then I don't know what you would do. Because the topic is just so broad! How can you get it all on one page right... Do you see what I'm saying?
"What you're saying is you've no reason to believe, you just do, is it?"
Nope. False words again.
"You my friend are Atheist to almost every God, I just go one God further, can you explain to me why you don't believe in Zeus or Thor or any other God? Probably not, you just don't, right? Well I feel like all these Gods need including."
You're trying to change the subject. But I will answer non the less.
Of course those other Gods need including. The reason I don't believe in those other gods is because I find truth through the holy spirit (from God) and basically that is the answer that I got.
But we differ greatly on the subject of finding truth so it would be invalid to go down this road.
"You display the Christian "Yahwahocentrism" , because you believe in the God of the Bible, that he is the only one worth debating."
So you know what I believe now. What did you do to achieve that truth? Are you sure that's what I believe because I do not.(I believe in the god of the bible it's the 2nd part of the sentence I'm talking about)
What makes you think I think other gods aren't worth debating? I consider myself a very reasonable and open minded person. And it's shocking to me that somebody who relies so much on science is willing to assume so much of the beliefs and opinions of others. Psychology is a science if you studied it (as I do) then you would realize how biased and closed minded you sound. You are not a critical thinker.
I'm sure there are plenty of people who believe that in a debate it is best to post a detailed argument with reason without going overboard and having to list every reason in existence. ..This is obvious.
Of course there would be, if the topic were not so broad.
All I'm wanting (and keep in mind I'm not telling anyone what to do) is a detailed argument with reason.
On the contrary, you're wanting to nit-pick.
But that's not why I called you low.... Nice try though.
This debate is about God, your debate is from pedantry, it is in your inability to actually refute my original argument, that were it as weak as you proclaim, would be easy for you to tear apart. But you can't. This is my point, for this (my calling you out) you call me low.
You'd have to define win
As in, you'd have to admit my argument the most logically valid, or would be by consensus.
But in my post on the other side (that you haven't disputed yet)
To be honest, it's because I couldn't be arsed, this debate is so old, I'd moved on by the time you started your dispute, I will give it a look though out of respect.
I know it's so hard for you. But could you explain that for me? It's a lot of work I know.
You say "Sure if you're loosing an argument make it about something els right?!"
yet you are the one that has made this debate about your personal belief in my argument's weakness, have admitted you can't actually dispute it and label me low for calling you out.
Because that's whatchya do in a debate.
Only when necessary.
That's when you say "your saying this" When I'm really not. Like when you were saying that I was saying you weren't allowed to post a one sentence argument.
I know what it is to put words in someone's mouth, but never heard of false words, to me jijijihsudsjdh would be a false word because it has no meaning, and doesn't exist in any known language.
It seemed pretty straight forward to me. How did you see it exactly?
A reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.
I gave a reason.
Nope. False words again.
How is it "false words", when it is a question?
So you know what I believe now.
I do, because I've read your posts, where you've stated your beliefs.
it's the 2nd part of the sentence I'm talking about)
You've only mentioned Christianity.
What makes you think I think other gods aren't worth debating?
I don't, maybe I made an overly broad assumption out of boredom.
Psychology is a science if you studied it (as I do) then you would realize how biased and closed minded you sound.
"Of course there would be, if the topic were not so broad."
No. I'm sorry it would still be the case.
"On the contrary, you're wanting to nit-pick."
Well I guess you could call it nit-picking.. just a simple way to break down certain points that I disagree with. Otherwise details might get missed. I find it efficient. I'm assuming you're talking about how I'm breaking down your arguments..
"This debate is about God, your debate is from pedantry"
Yes the debate we're having is separate. But I don't think it's inappropriate. I was actually intervening in a discussion you were already having. If I remember correctly.
"it is in your inability to actually refute my original argument, that were it as weak as you proclaim, would be easy for you to tear apart. But you can't. This is my point, for this (my calling you out) you call me low."
Well, you raise a good point. I sort of did dispute it but not directly. Though according to my stance on the issue it wouldn't last long. You see my reason to believe comes from something you don't believe exists. It's just not very compatible.
"You say "Sure if you're loosing an argument make it about something els right?!"
yet you are the one that has made this debate about your personal belief in my argument's weakness, have admitted you can't actually dispute it and label me low for calling you out."
See here's the thing. If I had directly disputed and we were already having a debate directly relevant to the topic then I suddenly brought it up in the middle of everything- then you'd have a point. That's what I was talking about when I said that.
"Only when necessary."
But your reason as to why it wouldn't be necessary is that you'd have to go to such great length with all kinds of research.(Which would have been smart to put in your original post) but that's not true soo......
"I know what it is to put words in someone's mouth, but never heard of false words, to me jijijihsudsjdh would be a false word because it has no meaning, and doesn't exist in any known language."
Ok fine you put words in my mouth. That's what I meant djbdsvoljkbdsv (:
"I gave a reason."
Fine you did. We've established that. But it was more a statement than an argument. If you had explained as you eventually have to me then it would have been a better argument.
"How is it "false words", when it is a question?"
You can put words in somebodies mouth in the form of a question sure why not?
"You've only mentioned Christianity."
So? You implied that I don't care about those other religions enough to talk about them. I mentioned Christianity because I'm a christian but my argument is broad enough to cover all belief. I have great respect for the beliefs of others. Including atheists.
"Now, now, let's not get pissy."
sdakljbdslkjsbdalkjbds (: oh sorry I'm I boring you?
I'm assuming you're talking about how I'm breaking down your arguments..
No, I'm talking about your ridiculous pedantry.
But I don't think it's inappropriate
It's both inappropriate and pointless.
I was actually intervening in a discussion you were already having.
Of this I am aware.
You see my reason to believe comes from something you don't believe exists. It's just not very compatible.
So, where does this leave us?
See here's the thing. If I had directly disputed and we were already having a debate directly relevant to the topic then I suddenly brought it up in the middle of everything- then you'd have a point.
So, because it wasn't you I was originally debating, it's OK for you to hijack the debate and bitch about the "quality" of the post.
But your reason as to why it wouldn't be necessary is that you'd have to go to such great length with all kinds of research.
Had this debate been more specific, my argument could have reflected that, how are you not getting that? If I had followed your line of reason, I'd have not been able to cover why I don't believe, it is logically sound to state I've no reason to believe, if I can defend this position.
Which would have been smart to put in your original post
I'll thank you to not tell me what you believe is smart or not.
but that's not true soo......
Oh but it is.
But it was more a statement than an argument
Debates normally start with an opening statement.
If you had explained as you eventually have to me then it would have been a better argument.
This is because discussing this topic with you, parameters were set within arguments, that allowed for some more specific points to be made
You can put words in somebodies mouth in the form of a question sure why not?
Because I asked you if it were your intention, this was to clarify, not to engage in some form of pseudo passive-aggression.
So? You implied that I don't care about those other religions enough to talk about them
I've already admitted to making too broad a generalization on this, why do you pursue it, is it to construct some form of strawman
why dont you expand on that, the whole point on the debate is to give your side with detail and facts, maybe even experience, but if you cant do that then your just wasting your time on this page. This could potentially be a sensitive subject to so atleast have a plausible reason instead of just saying he doesnt after all -_-
Lack of convincing arguments for such a thing. The fact that I disagree with both religions + the religious. Occam's Razor.
-
Under scientific procedure, what happens once, and again, and again, and again, tends to keep happening, and become asserted as scientific fact, despite a less than perfect understanding of such. It is therefore justified to believe that there is no God, simply because there is a lack of proof.
I agree completely. To invest faith in this manner perplexes me - and I don't see why someone would believe in God other than being brought up in the midst of such beliefs in the first place. There is a significant lack of proof, only extremely old and unreliable sources. They aren't proof, they just sort of poke at the issue. Theres no real way to look back at the origin from a verifiable standpoint. Another point is human nature - A good example being the Salem witch trials, in which a good deal of people were accused of witchcraft, and were either killed or imprisoned, because of a group of girls going on a power trip and people trying to swindle each other out of land. The Crusades and other historical events show religion being used in the same way. So, judging by the actions of God's believers in the past, and some even in the present, I feel justified in saying that the belief is vague to the point where there's barely any definition to it. Therefore, I simply cannot believe in a benevolent God, or any at all, until proven otherwise by scientific means, rather than passionate responses.
So, judging by the actions of God's believers in the past, and some even in the present, I feel justified in saying that the belief is vague to the point where there's barely any definition to it.
Yeah, the good old 'objective morality' argument seems to be said a lot more than followed.
Therefore, I simply cannot believe in a benevolent God, or any at all, until proven otherwise by scientific means, rather than passionate responses.
A God (who claims to be omniscient, omnipotent & omnibenevolent) is impossible. The arguments been ripped to shreds by the Problem of Evil, to which there is no satisfying rebuttal.
I believe that anyone with any individual thought would be intelligent enough to know the obvious.
But I'll give you what you ask. How about how the bible says murder is wrong, yet it tells you to kill countless times. Such as a child who swears. And don't bother telling me the old testament doesn't apply. The Christian god is supposedly perfect, but if he is so perfect there would be no need to change the rules after the first time.
There's more examples but if you wish to learn more I'm sure you can find them elsewhere.
If you don't believe in a God, you're an atheist. You don't need to be aware of this, you don't need to have an alternative belief, you simply do not need to believe in a God.
Atheism is not man made, it is the natural state of things, the status quo.
I think it's more likely a dog would believe that a superior being created all he can see, than to think that everything around him appeared out of a bang.
"If you don't believe in a God, you're an atheist. You don't need to be aware of this, you don't need to have an alternative belief, you simply do not need to believe in a God."
But why would someone choose not to believe in God unless they find something which they consider more believable?
"Atheism is not man made, it is the natural state of things, the status quo."
I think it's more likely a dog would believe that a superior being created all he can see, than to think that everything around him appeared out of a bang.
Pretty sure a dog would not be able to comprehend such events. And if they could, I'd imagine they'd simply be apathetic.
But why would someone choose not to believe in God unless they find something which they consider more believable?
Because people do not start by believing in God, and then stopping when they find a better alternative. They start with nothing, not believing in anything, not knowing anything. 'Choosing not to believe in God' is not something that everyone goes through, Christianity is not a big a part of everyones life as it is yours.
So is killing everything that competes with you.
I never said it was good, I simply said it's natural. But wow, an appeal to emotion, not like theists to use such fallacious techniques to try and 'win' debate.
A dog probably doesn't think about it, wouldn't know the answer if he did, and defiantly wouldn't cling to some fantasy fiction because he's afraid he might go crazy or be possessed if he believes in nothing.
God is, in this context, and explanation as to how things came about. It is possible to have an explanation, it is possible to prefer one explanation over another, and it is possible to not have an explanation. If you prefer science to religion, you're an atheist who has chosen to something more believable than god to follow. But if you don't know and never claimed to know, it's not even a matter of not choosing to believe in god, your life is entirely bereft of the idea and explanation of god in the first place, and you dont need to find something more convincing than god to believe in to be this way.
All i was doing there was providing an example of something someone becoming an atheist might choose to believe in instead of god. You can prefer both, you dont need to dispute me on that.
I think agnosticism is the natural state of things because you don't say "I don't believe in God" you just simply haven't even decided if God exists because the idea has not occurred to you.
I disagree that this is natural. Having a view on this issue is not the natural state. Agnosticism is taking a stand. Atheism is the position of the apathetic, the ignorant, and those who we consider atheists. As you say, it's taking a stand, not taking a stand does not mean you support both equally, it means that you believe in what you have immediate proof for.
Just so you know, I don't think that this gives atheism any proof: the status quo is also against evolution, government, and technology, all things which I support.
Nope Christianity isn't man made. Its a relationship with Jesus Christ.
Ok religion is man's way to get to God. Christianity changed to God's way to get to man. So I am not in a religion I am in a relationship with Jesus Christ.
No scientific proof of what you said there. I personally think you've been severely brainwashed by that belief of yours (wonder who did it to you). See the truth for yourself, did Jesus really rise from the grave? What is the basis of your claim? If you only said it like that without any proof, then I can also claim that Allah the moon god is still alive.
Consider this possibility:
Jesus was already alive before he was buried, then at the night somebody helped him to escape from his grave. Isn't that possible? He or his co-conspirator created some kind of hole in the coffin so that he could breathe. Sounds more like a lame magic trick to me than a miracle. I can do that if I want to. No, everyone is capable of doing that.
Just because he rose from his grave made him God? Then zombie is also God.
Because it defies reason & logic. With all the religions out there, which one should we subscribe to? Does not make sense to believe an invisible man in the sky created us...where the hell has he/she been for thousands of years anyway? Vacation??According to the book he used to talk to us all the time....now when we use this as a defense in court (God spoke to me or God told me to do it) we get to use the insanity plea...hmmmmmmm wonder why!
So if something good came out of something crazy it is God but if something bad happens we blame mental illness? that makes sense...So when everyone thanks god for their homerun or touchdown that is gods doing but they strike out or fumble it is not? wow thanks for clarifying this...I guess all the people that died in the tsunami
or in the haitian earth quake must have done god wrong!
I dont belive or not believe...why? because it isn't worth thinking about. If he is out there cool if not whatever. It won't change the way anyone should live their life. debates like this are stupid because believers say all this nonsense, and non believers ask for proof. This isn't a debate about proof because there will never be proof and god will never be disproven either, at the same time how can believers spit nonsense and expect others to believe it without proof. So it really isn't debatable because everyone misses the other sides points and it doesn't change anything. stop wasting your brains time.
ps. debateleader im not at all saying your stupid for making this debate I'm just saying my thoughts on the whole issue.
I don't believe in God because the idea that an all powerful being controls the world. One reason for me anyway, is that Christianity has lasted for about 2,000 years. But when you look farther back, the Egyptian Gods were worshiped for about 3,000 years. And the Greek Gods were mainly worshiped in the Bronze Age (from 3000BC) until Christianity was introduced in the 4th century AD. That's about 6,000 to 7,000 years that they were worshiped. During those times, that was their religion, they believed that Zeus, Apollo, Athena, and all the other gods were the reason for a lot of the things in the world. Now they are nothing more but myths and Legends. I don't believe in God because I think it's a big lie, and that within a few thousand years from now, the future will mark Christianity and all the other religions today as nothing but myths, and stories. Again, this is what I think.
Because... well , it's simple, there's no proof that he does exist. All God did was just swearing to us to grant happiness for all mankind on the planet. But you can see murder, rape, and burglary are happening everywhere. And thus, there's no proof for his actions nor his promises. Believe in God doesn't mean you're a good person. Know the terrorists ? They believe in God [they said], don't they? Are they good people?
All of the obvious reasons, provided by theists daily, aside for disbelieving in this entity.
If one were to take something impossible to fathom in today's society with religions so rampant, a completely unindoctrinated individual.
Then you were to explain to them the Universe through the eyes of theism, and the Universe through the eyes of one who wonders at these things and still strives for answers.
Everything is far more beautiful when you do not limit yourself to a man-made explanation born of fear and superstition. Instead when you accept life as limited and strive for understanding of this complex, but explainable thing.
Because I look around and wonder why the hell is he not helping us?
I used to believe in God, but I've seen things and I know things that are incredibly horrible. You may argue that God wants us to fix our sins ourselves, or whatever, but then what's really the point of Him? Just to watch us suffer and die? What kind of God is that?
Yup, I mean really. Who needs a devil, when you have a God like this. A God who just watches from a cloud in the sky, and sees us suffer for his enjoyment.
even idont beleive in god.........................whenever you need help does god come and help you......you always pray for god during exams isnt it but who has work hard they have passed but who have prrayed to god ,plz pass me or my dad will kill me bla and bla ...........but its tre that GOD IS NOT REAL AND ITS JUST A FALSE BELEIFS.....i ma getting a mood to kill the person who said first about god
I don't believe in God because the idea of some mythical being is the reason for the world is just so stupid to me. But if there were a God, then he is a major asshole. If he really cared for all of us he would. If he is as "pure" as everyone says he is, he would forgive us for not believing in him. I mean really, "Oh? you're gay? you're atheist? you believe in other gods besides me? well you will now go to hell and suffer for all eternity. Your soul will be tortured for defying me, and for going against my teachings. But I still love you" -God
If God does exist then he should judge people by the way they lived their lives, not is they believe in him or not.
I am so sorry, but i really cannot fit all my points in this one puny box! Ok, it causes war, suffering, pain, false hope, e.t.c. Animal cruelty, racism, patriotism.t.c I could go on forever about how ridiculous it is that people are willing to kill others because of something they themselves made up. Really, i wrote a public speech on this, lasted 20 mins got top prize, there is no possible justification for God, Allah, Jesus, Mohamed. I mean for Christs sake (< :) the guy had sex with a 9 year old, and we're supposed to respect that? Abraham was willing to slit his sons throat because some voice in his head told him to. And you know the Islamic religion. Each year, about 1 billion of them get a sheep or a goat and slit its throat in the name of Allah. Slitting the throat is meant to be the most humane thing to do according to them. But, if their pet became terminally ill, they give it a lethal injection. If they want to commit suicide, gun shot or cliff. Never slitting throats, because they KNOW its a slow painful process. Please, listen to this, i'm not trying to get likes, i am being serious no good has EVER or ever will come from religion. Either it will die out, or it will start the third world war, as we are currently n our way towards.
Because the word god is (most usually) a reference to a supposedly perfect authority that one can supposedly communicate with. I believe that regarding any being as perfect is a bad idea because it's helps us cling stubbornly to poorly drawn conclusions about reality. Of course merely claiming to not believe in god doesn't render one immune to being too sure of themselves about things either.
I do not believe because there is no substantial evidence to conclude a deity exists, and even if that was established, we must then discover which deity exists for the evidence to have an impact.
Even though I went to a Catholic school for 9 years, I wasn't rasied that way, or to believe that stuff... even my mom believes but I still wasn't raised that way... and I choose not to change MY beliefs.
Personally, I don't believe in it simply because it feels dangerous, like if he actually did exist I would be in trouble. That's part of why I don't believe- Wouldn't he have smited someone like me by now, or whatever god does when someone pisses her off?
I don't believe in God because the scientific evidence of today extensively competes with that. Call me a Darwinist if you wish... but I believe in the theory of evolution. I have no interest in Christianity because if we are the REAL sons of god, then wouldn't we all be indeed perfect. Sure, I know that Jesus once walked on this earth and sure, I believe that there's something up there.
well first off you probably already seen this but where is the proof? and also its not that i dont just believe in god its also everything, because EVERY single last thing in the world has been made up, how do we know that space is real, have we been there No so how do we know that someone didnt just make up an image? so i have to say god falls right with that, someone said that there was a god and so people believed that person, and it moved on and on in peoples lives. this God figure came from something someone made up and now kids that say "Oh yeah he's real" only really believe because mostly there parents told them he was. not because they met him, but because someone said so. so god is so not real :)
I do not believe in God because I have no reason to. i live in the top country in the world. I have endless opportunities. I don't have to work yet. I can spend most of my time studying, having fun, living life happy. I will not gain anything in believing in God...
The fact that so many people in this rich country believe in God is worrisome. They have no valid reason to believe so much in God (to the point that it mingles with politics) in this country unless they are brainwashed to...
Maybe the majority is brainwashed... It would make sense because to get people buy gum that washes your teeth, the people have to be maintained weak minded... BUT that is another subject.
Maybe some people are concerned about their eternal destination rather than this short life. That can be pretty good reason, I wouldn't be worried about this.
of the existence of evil in the world. How can you believe in a loving God with the history of the Holocaust and the Crusades and other pointless massacres?
I respect that but from the way I see it, the existenc of evil is just to great for me to even contemplate that there might be someone out there who knows the dangers of giving human beings free will.
Ah I see you are fond of taking the Leibniz position in all of this- to put it simply he too believed that evil was necessary to bring about the good in people. I don't think it is necessary, I believe that we as human beings would eventually discover the goodness within ourselves.
to put it simply he too believed that evil was necessary to bring about the good in people.
I'm not saying this at all. Humans are inherently imperfect. There will always be evil. I'm not saying its necessary to have evil in order for humans to be good, I'm saying its necessary for humans to choose to be good. There's a big difference here.
I don't think it is necessary, I believe that we as human beings would eventually discover the goodness within ourselves.
You say eventually, then wouldn't there be evil leading up to that point of discovery??
Okay fine, if you're going to be so pedantic about it- remove the 'eventually' part of the sentence. We would find the goodness within ourselves and we could find it without the presence of evil.
You don't seem to get it. Evil is not really a created thing. What you're saying is that we don't need evil in order to be good. Its not that we need evil, its just something humans do. It just comes along with goodness. For you to suggest that of 6 billion people in the world, not one would ever commit an evil deed is ridiculous.
Look, I genuinely do NOT (in fact cannot) ever believe in God or a god of some description because of the evil in this world, everything that has happened, is happening and will happen. Some of the shit I've seen in my life has convinced me that god cannot be real. I have a little more faith in us human beings. If "evil is not a created thing" as you say then how did it come into being?
I don't really see how you don't grasp this. God gave humans free will, therefore they could choose to do good or evil. God didn't force them to do either, so its not really God that "made" evil, its humans who chose to do it.
I'm agnostic, therefore I don't know if there's a supernatural force that rules the world. It could exist, it could not. Nobody knows and nobody will ever know. It's something that is out of reach of the human kind. However, if there IS a supernatural force, being God or no, it gives absolutely no f*cks for the humans.
I do not see any good evidence for the christian god specifically, in fact I see a lot of evidence against him, besides I can not stand radical christian bigots.
That doesn't mean shit, I am pro-life because I understand that it is wrong to kill an unborn child not because the big guy up in the sky doesn't like it! Not all pro-lifers are Christians.
I don't follow a monotheistic religion because there are so many other religions... I'm the religious equivalent of globalised. I don't believe in creation or omnipotence, just that there are higher beings that like to annoy us every now and then.
I don't believe in god because I am someone who seeks answers that can be backed up with solid evidence/proof. God is something that has no true proof. The thought is simply not logical. Plus, I will use the overly used point of saying that "If there was a god he wouldn't let all the bad things happen" There are just too many things going against god's existence, therefore I do not believe in him. I find god and religion illogical, but that is just my opinion.
The weak-minded believe in God, mostly, or just people brainwashed into it since birth. My mind is not weak.
I wrote a little something in the debate "Does God really exists"? That there should cover it. Wait... "exists"? It should be "exist".
It is 21st century and there is still talk of God? Seriously, come to present, this is not some 16th, 17th, or whatever century before those or a few after.
For the good of humanity - ALL religion and the the concept of God must die.
You should know that religion saved humanity, before religion in the middle east, people used to bury girls alive, sacrifice children and treat women as sex objects. Humanity has come up with amazing inventions that you use today during a time where the majority were religious. Albert Einstein believed in God and without him, you wouldn't have known about space, time and matter as deeply as now. And people talk about God because sometimes they find that logic tells them so, furthermore this is not an argument, is is a complaint.
In what way exactly did it save humanity? Were we on the brink of extinction? Nothing else has created more death and destruction than religion. If religion had not existed there would have been wars and deaths, but not that much.
You do know that religion has ordered many books burnt? It has hindered science in the past, you do know about that?
before religion in the middle east, people used to bury girls alive, sacrifice children and treat women as sex objects.
Oh really?
Mayans had their religion. You know what they did? They sacrificed people.
You do know how Muslims or whoever they are treat women right this moment because of their religion?
Egyptians mummified their children, the wealthy ones at least, but still. And they did it because of their religion.
Since you noted burying girls alive, why do you think they did it? Because of their own religion? So you swap one for another and that makes it okay? Doesn't matter what kind of religion, they are ALL bad.
Women, in the past, have always been treated more as sex objects. You think the religious people who spread the "word of God" did not do it themselves? Have you heard the stories of priests, bishops, popes and other scum like that treat women and CHILDREN as sex objects? I sure have.
Albert Einstein believed in God and without him, you wouldn't have known about space, time and matter as deeply as now.
Einstein and religious? Don't know, don't care, he means nothing to me.
Got it from wikipedia, don't know how accurate or true it is, but: It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
Either way. Including Einstein in this topic is pointless. It serves nothing here.
And people talk about God because sometimes they find that logic tells them so
The only logic behind people talking about God is plain old stupidity. After all, being stupid is logical, it could not exist otherwise. The existence of the concept of religion and God is also logical, it could not exist if it weren't, but it does not make it true nor right. We, humans, are capable of thinking up scenarios that cannot, as "laws of physics, of existence", exist in our universe with its peculiar "logic".
Oh yes, some extremist Muslims torture their women badly, in the time of the caliphs, so many things were just wonderful, I am sure you are ignorant of Muslim history, what about UAE Muslims and women, they are fine. What about Qatar's Muslim women? they are fine. What about Yemeni Muslim women? You just look at Afghanistan and KSA and Iran. You should also know that the majority of Muslims are against acts of the Taliban. Against acts of KSA. Stop basing the government as if religeon was solely responsible for it even though what they are doing is against the scriptures they "follow". how are ALL religions bad when you don't even know every single one of them. Did you know that some religions actually encouraged their people to learn more science? You see, you just look at the bad times and ignore everything else, typical.
Why shouldn't I be. I know enough about them as it is. It would be a waste of time learning more. (goes about all religions)
You see, you just look at the bad times and ignore everything else, typical.
It may be typical, because it is true.
There is no good times when it comes to religion. You think there are? Like what for example?
The religious people tend to be much dumber than those who aren't, they tend to adhere to those stupid books and ways of religion by shutting out how things actually are and have been. For example, many religious people don't "believe" in evolution, it is not something you "believe" in, it is a fact proven over and over again.
Muslims, for example. A person should be able to choose for him/herself whether to "believe" some stupid crap, not be brainwashed since birth into it. The fact that others have done it before does not make it right.
Were you yourself too brainwashed since birth and thus at the appropriate age rendered incapable of thinking for yourself? Have you ever truly thought about the existence of God and the validity of religion, without the bias you received from your parents? I strongly doubt you have.
Religion is useless, pointless, unnecessary, not needed. It is a waste of time following it. If there were no religion, people would be smarter because in its stead they would think and know more about science and how things really are and work, and be overall smarter. Religion is old and it is detrimental to humanity, thus it is in need of an end, it has to end, has to die.
Did you know that some religions actually encouraged their people to learn more science?
Encouraged? As in did but do no longer? You think if there were no religion people had not learned more science? I bet they had done it even more than with it.