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.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
What makes more sense? Islam or Atheism
Which has has more evidence, makes more sense, and is more rational. Please if your arguing, argue over islam the religion, NOT the followers. Dont bring up terrorism or anything else stupid.
atheism means simply madness just and just madness
The minimum argument length is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
Atheism makes no sense at all. In fact how can one person believe that here is no God at all and then still believe that the earth was created. And if it was created then by who??
You mean to say that the earth wasn't created rather it just formed naturally. then answer me these questions:
1) Do you have full confidence that science is 100% correct and if it is is every fact correct with proof?
2)Okay lets think that the the Earth and nature formed naturally. So it is that the Earth formed due to a Big Bang theory and if that was true then what was the biggest guarantee
that the dislodged stones should clump together and support life. Let's think further how did the Big Bang come into being? How or why did it have to form into earth and not something else unless there was God behind it?
3)You say "It formed naturally" if you believe in the Big Bang so can you say me where the stones that supposedly formed earth come from ?
So you see its not a silly claim after all and by this I mean to say that atheism doesn't even make sense.
"I don't know, therefore god" is not an argument. Pointing out that you have not sufficiently studied the mechanics behind the formation of planets is not evidence that said planets did not form, nor is it an argument against atheism.
1) I am confident that reality will be determined through science and that anything that is incorrect will be corrected. If you are wrong, how confident are you that your belief system well be updated to become correct?
2) You start by saying that we assume I am right, but you didn't, did you? The Earth doesn't form because of a theory. The theory was created because the Earth formed in the past and the theory is explaining how.
The Big Bang formed billions of stars and planets. Earth is not unique. If Earth was the only planet observable you would have a point.
3) The universe is billions of years old. In that time stars have formed and exploded expelling matter throughout the universe created the material needed for Earth.
Atheism is the doubt people have for your beliefs. You showing doubt isn't silly, and neither is Atheism. Especially since you didn't actually point out anything crazy.
Yes I have heard many and I believe that science needs to advance further to prove those facts and i think many scientists will agree with me. And until then i have my full confidence on Islam and not on science.
But if you hold science to such a high standard, why do you hold your religion to such a low one? Surely science has advanced sufficiently to provide far more evidence than Islam does.
Islam makes way more sense than Atheism. It has more evidence towards it. Atheism is mostly irrational. There are 3 things atheists can NEVER prove without using theories or speculation. How did the universe come to exist, how did life form on earth spontaneously, and how did this life evolve into Humans that have such advanced ingenuity and morale. Islam supports big bang but says God was a catalyst. Islam supports evolution up to the fact that humans came from primates because humans are OBVIOUSLY different. Islam also is scientifically 100% accurate. Mecca is the golden ratio of the world. Many things in the quran are scientifically accurate and there thigns people at the time had no clue of. Such as the shape of the world, the shape of embryos, big bang, estuaries, reflected moonlight, water cycle, ripples. NO ONE at the time of its revalation had these ideas and the quran had them through a single prophet. There is no way Muhammed came up with this it has to be a revelation from god. Also the Quran itself is a proof. How can a book have not a single letter changed, not a single contradiction within itself or with science. Its truly a miracle. The idea of atheism is flawed and has no backing. Even if atheism is more probable than most religions Islam is more probable. Even if Islam is more probable by 1% I dont see why you should just pick Islam because it has more benefits, refer to pascals wager.
There are 3 things atheists can NEVER prove without using theories or speculation.
How can you prove Islam without theories or speculation? Islam is just speculation. At least theories have evidence.
Mecca is the golden ratio of the world.
Wtf does this mean?
Also the Quran itself is a proof. How can a book have not a single letter changed, not a single contradiction within itself or with science. Its truly a miracle
The Quran is not proof of anything, other than its own existence. Nor is it a miracle.
The idea of atheism is flawed and has no backing
No, you are ignorant on this issue. There is no flaw in a lack of belief in gods, for no gods have met their burden of proof.
Even if atheism is more probable than most religions Islam is more probable.
Atheism makes no claims, it is merely an absence of belief in god. Islam is the opposite, it has claims and it asserts god's existence, despite having no evidence for its claims.
Even if Islam is more probable by 1% I dont see why you should just pick Islam because it has more benefits, refer to pascals wager.
Pascal's wager is invalid. Any omniscient god would know that you were just playing the odds by believing in god, just to escape hell. A truly benevolent god would judge people based on their actions, not on blind belief in a deity. Pascal's wager has already been debunked, enough with this nonsense.
How can you prove Islam without theories or speculation? Islam is just speculation. At least theories have evidence.
Islam is an idea. And that idea has nothing contradicting against it. Christianities trinity goes against the idea of time and space. Hinduisms gods just cannot against. Islam says that god exists OUTSIDE of time and space. And time and space were obviously created so something had to create it. Surely it isnt proven with facts but it has nothing going against it and it is probable. On the other hand Atheism has those 3 things that cant be answered therefore it shouldnt be followed. You shouldnt have faith in something that has things going against it. Which is why you shouldnt be a christian, hindu or atheist. I doubt you can find one major thing that goes against the idea of Islam.
No, you are ignorant on this issue. There is no flaw in a lack of belief in gods, for no gods have met their burden of proof.
Well im talking about the ideas that stay within atheism such as humanary evolution and that life came from chemicals.
Atheism makes no claims, it is merely an absence of belief in god. Islam is the opposite, it has claims and it asserts god's existence, despite having no evidence for its claims.
Yes but Islam has nothing against it. And to be an atheist you have things that cause you to be one. Including the idea of evolution again.
Pascal's wager is invalid. Any omniscient god would know that you were just playing the odds by believing in god, just to escape hell. A truly benevolent god would judge people based on their actions, not on blind belief in a deity. Pascal's wager has already been debunked, enough with this nonsense
Im sorry your right. Its not good to become something just for escape.
Islam is an idea. And that idea has nothing contradicting against it. Christianities trinity goes against the idea of time and space. Hinduisms gods just cannot against. Islam says that god exists OUTSIDE of time and space. And time and space were obviously created so something had to create it. Surely it isnt proven with facts but it has nothing going against it and it is probable.
It is not probable, and I can certainly think of something going against it. You say that God is outside of time and space. If God exists, and he created the universe, then there would have to be a time in which god had not created the universe. Some form of time is required, therefore making god subject to time and not "outside" of time.
If God created the universe, there would have to be a time when he had not yet created the universe. If there was a time before god created the universe, and a time when he finished creating the universe, god is not outside of time.
Ok this argument is very ignorant, no offense. humans were created within time and space. Therefor their minds and bodies are bound to time and space. As a human you cannot comprehend anything outside of time and space. You saying "there was a time when he hadnt" makes no sense. There wasnt a time when he hadnt, because before he created the universe time and space didnt exist. So there was no "time".
If God existed and created the universe, there had to have been a moment where he had not yet created the universe. These are two independent events, one is where God had not created the universe. The other is when God finished creating the universe.
A concept of time is mandatory in order for God to do anything. Therefore, god is bound by the limitations of time in order to do anything. In order to do something, there has to be a time where you hadn't yet done that action.
Ok. Your argument is completely invalid. There was no moment. Ok there was no concept of time. You cant think like that as a human. Your brain cant conceive those images. God isnt bound by space or time. Now you tell me whats more logical. Something outside of space or time creating it. Or a universe bounded by space and time just popping out of nowhere. In science it is agree that something cannot come out of nothing. There is no way.
Ok. Your argument is completely invalid. There was no moment. Ok there was no concept of time. You cant think like that as a human. Your brain cant conceive those images
If we cannot possibly comprehend the things we are discussing about, then why have a discussion at all if it just turns into absurdity?
Ok thats not what i mean. Your brain is bound to time and space and cannot compute whats going on outside. Thats a fact not an absurdity. For you to say there was a time when god created. Is completely ignorant. How could there be a time. If there is no time outside spacetime. Your argument is useless in arguing this.
For you to say there was a time when god created. Is completely ignorant. How could there be a time. If there is no time outside spacetime. Your argument is useless in arguing this.
It's not useless, you just simply do not understand my position. If God exists outside of space and time, and he created them, then god is immune to any type of logical explanation. Only an illogical explanation would explain him, but since it would fundamentally make no sense to us we would (and should) reject it.
The logical explanation is that if God created the universe and time, then there was obviously a time when he had NOT YET created the universe and time. A concept of time is mandatory for god, therefore he cannot be timeless.
How is my argument illogical. Its not illogical, it could be claimed to be made up. Buts its perfectly logical. Its much more logical than the universe popping out of nowhere.
And back to your argument on there was a time where he had not. Well im done talking about this. You just seem to have a lack of IQ to understand what im trying to say. Ill just move on.
Aether wtf is that. And are you stupid. You think everything is contained in space and time? Space and time had a beginning of existence, so when they didnt begin to exist you think there was nothing? Theres more outside the universe. I hate arguing with these stupid kids that dont know anything about science and just stay in their own little world.
It is because you are arguing that god can perform actions without a concept of time. This is fundamentally illogical. If there was a moment when there was no universe, then a moment when god created a universe, a concept of time is mandatory in order for a being to perform actions.
And you do know...? You keep insisting that a being can exist, and perform actions at separate moments, all while not taking up space or requiring a concept of time.
Your argument is entirely illogical from the start. You don't even have math to back this up, which is the ONLY reason why we accept quantum physics despite how illogical it can be at times.
You're ignoring the idea of the 10 dimensions(Look them up). There are many different ideas there which could support the idea of there being a god of sorts. The idea of the 10 dimensions make it so that god isn't bound by time, or anything for that matter.
Sure ive seen that theory many times. But it doesnt have any thing else supporting it except an idea. Islam is an idea + many other things. Therefor I'd pick that. Also i dont think god would merely be a part of another dimension. I think something that omnipotent would just entirely exist outside any dimensions
It does have something supporting it. If you looked at it, life, this world around us, nothing is possible with without the idea of the 10 dimensions. The idea of the 10 dimensions is proven, although they haven't proven what all of the dimensions are, although they've made their guess open.
I think something that omnipotent would just entirely exist outside any dimensions
Nothing can live outside all of the dimensions, for there is nothing else. No other 'place' for this 'deity' to be.
If there are multiple dimensions why 10? Only 3 maybe 4 have been proven. For there to be 10 is a pure speculation. It may have logical backing but it isn't proven. Why should it be required. We dont even know the 10. There could be infinitely many dimensions. But again we as humans are bound by 3 dimensions so we cant compute stuff outside of it. And the 10 dimensions was an idea coined by humans. The idea of something existing out of space and time was an idea, believed by us, to be told by god. Sure maybe there are 10, why does it matter. Its irrelavant to the debate.
There are actually 11 dimensions. (0 being a dimension.) up to 4 has been proven. (Although if there were only 4 then deities would be impossible in many ways.)
I forget where this was discovered but when proving something else, I feel like it had something to do with string theory, although I forget exactly, but once this 'thing' was proved, it revealed that there need to be exactly 11 dimensions. I don't quite know how they came to this conclusion, but considering how advanced this stuff is I doubt I could get the math at this point anyway. It's only relevant to this debate because you're trying to prove that you're side is more logical, while the 11 dimensions show that your 'logic' isn't valid.
They just show that there is another view point. It doesnt show my logic is invalid. Also notice string theory. THEORY, not proven. I agree islam isnt proven. But im 100% positive there is more backing for Islam than string theory.
I'm not ignoring it, I just don't see how it's relevant here.
No matter the dimensions, God is still bound by a concept of time. If there was a moment where he didn't create the universe, and then he created the universe, a concept of time is mandatory.
If there was a god, he'd be able to roam throughout the dimensions, and therefor even if he did create the universe at a specific time, or was created at a specific time, he would have the power to 'blur' that in a sense, in which changing this 'time' or 'space' however he sees fit, for he's beyond the 4th dimension (time)
How can he do anything in a "before" or "after" sense then if he is not bound by time?
Apparently God just "existed" and then one random day in his existence he decided to create everything. A concept of time is mandatory, even for god. Otherwise we begin the descent into madness and illogical explanations.
God would live in the 10th dimension, being that the 10th dimension is the only dimension un-bound by time. The 10th dimension is described as 'everything', therefor it can't be changed, since you can't do anything to literally everything. If you can try to understand that... Now the idea of god creating everything is the thought of him leaving the 10th dimension and then creating all of us on the 3rd dimension, and since we're on the 3rd dimension we'd be automatically effected by time. God, being a 10 dimensional being, is not bound by time. He's always been here, and always will be. That's the idea of 'god'.
Wtf is all this 3rd dimension, 10th dimension? Are you making all this up? Are you a troll??
In order for god to "do" anything, a concept of time is mandatory. It is unavoidable. For there would have to be a moment in which god didn't perform the act, and then a moment in which he did perform the act.
For example, there was nothing, and then god created everything. Time is mandatory in order to do anything.
^ this is a somewhat simple way of describing the dimensions. Although for some reason I doubt that by watching that you'll figure out how to relate it to the idea of 'deities'. There is a time where he created 'everything' that I can agree with, although god himself isn't in this 'timeline' being that he isn't effected by 'time'. Yes, without time nothing could change being that with no time everything would be that of a 'picture' or sorts. Only the 10th dimension is unaffected by time.
I don't believe he's a troll, he's just trying to explain M theory, though incorrectly and misguidedly.
M theory does state that there are 10 dimensions, but we know NOTHING about any but our own 4. We don't know whether they're spatial dimensions or temporal dimensions, within our universe or part of a multiverse, observable or inobservable. We have no idea, and we've barely just begun to speculate.
You are correct in what you are saying, for even if the tenth dimension were timeless, for God to even exist within it would bind him to time.
Are you serious. Time was CREATED this is a FACT supported by all scientists. There is a thing known as spacetime continuum. Space and time are together. Universe was created, universe contains space and time. If you dont think time was created think of space, big bang? All matter was created in big bang, space and time are connected so time was also created. So anything "before" big bang has no time. I dont think before is the correct term since that again refers to time but thats the best term I can think of.
Time was CREATED this is a FACT supported by all scientists.
Where is your source then? Because my understanding was that scientists didn't know.
So anything "before" big bang has no time.
Then logically, it follows that nothing could have happened "before" the big bang, since there wouldn't have been a concept of time to let anything happen in the first place.
SOURCE REALLY? HOW IGNORANT ARE YOU. Ok do you accept the universe had a beginning, or creation. If you dont. Stop talking to me. If you do you have to realize, that space and time are connected. The universe is space you can see that with any mind. Now if space and time are bound together time had to be created when the universe was.
EXACTLY thats why i said before is not the right term. Stop taking my words out of context.
Apparently the only ignorant one here is you. Show me some evidence or proof that scientists have declared that time was created. I believe that the scientific consensus is that they don't know if time was created or not.
Now if space and time are bound together time had to be created when the universe was.
What I'm saying is that the scientific consensus is "I don't know". Not "we know for a fact the universe was created". They simply don't know at the moment.
Do you believe the universe had a beginning? Yes it was. EVERY SCIENTIST says that look it up anywhere. Well that means space has a beginning. Its simple. Now if space has a beginning and they are connected in one continuum they both have a beginning. Simple idea to teach you. I wouldnt need to do this if you could just check any website anything thats not stupid.
Its not I dont know. Have you heard of the Big Bang?
My answer is merely: I don't know. We do not know enough about the universe to know its origins.
Yes it was. EVERY SCIENTIST says that look it up anywhere
No, this is not the consensus. Scientists do not assert "the universe was created", common every day logic would imply that, but common every day logic is not always correct. Try applying everyday logic to quantum physics.
I wouldnt need to do this if you could just check any website anything thats not stupid.
And I have checked the websites. Are you aware of the fact that world renowned physicists Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss currently believe that the universe self created itself? This doesn't mean they're correct, but it just shows that there isn't a consensus on the matter. The answer is "we don't know".
Stephen Hawking is the most educated man on this subject in the WORLD. http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html I'm sorry but you lost this part of the argument. Theres not anything else i can say. If the universe was just there and didnt have a beginning like you said. Then that means time couldnt exist in it. Thats a contradicting idea, the universe itself is contained within time, if it didnt have a beginning of time how could it be there. And also the universe is constantly expanding that proves it had to have a beginning.
Oh i didnt see this. Yes they think it created itself, but they think it was created. EVERYONE does. They just dont have a consensus on how it was created.
I'm sorry but you lost this part of the argument. Theres not anything else i can say. If the universe was just there and didnt have a beginning like you said.
I said that? I actually typed on my keyboard something akin to the phrase "the universe did not have a beginning" ? I seem to recall stating 3 distinct times that my understanding of the matter was that there wasn't a consensus, and that the answer is currently "I don't know".
And also the universe is constantly expanding that proves it had to have a beginning.
Beginning relative to what context though? One idea is that the universe is in a cycle of "big bang" and "big crunch". Your "beginning" might just be the initial bang followed by the expansion afterwards. In that case, it would be a pseudo beginning, since we would have no way of knowing how many "cycles" of bang and crunch were before that. Like I said before, my personal opinion is that we do not have enough information, aka "I don't know".
Quote from article - "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," he writes. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.
Ok sorry i misread. But you accept that it was created and only how it was created in not in consensus?
And Stephen Hawking is theorizing the M-theory, Ive seen it. Like 11 dimensions, it talks about super gravity etc. It again is all speculation, and the theory is not even close to complete. It isnt a strong basis of argument.
But you accept that it was created and only how it was created in not in consensus?
I'm not an expert on the origins of the universe. Therefore, I do not know if it was created or if everything has existed for eternity. My answer is again a blank "I don't know".
I have heard physicists discuss how that if time began with the big bang, then there wouldn't technically be anything "before" the big bang since time wouldn't have existed before then. Whether you believe the universe was created, or it existed for infinity, both concepts to me are fundamentally illogical but that doesn't mean they're false.
It's strange because our minds basically set us up for failure. We just want to know what the beginning of everything was, but the logical question to ask after that is "what happened before that", and it seems we've reached a wall in regards to the big bang. If there was something before that, then what was before that. And so on and so on, our minds will never be satisfied because we view infinity as a physical impossibility, but when we look at the big bang we want to know what happened before that, and before that, and before that, when does it end!?
That makes no sense at all. How is no gods more logical. Is it more logical that something came from nothing and the universe just popped out of no where and time and space were created. Is it more logical that space is randomly perfect for life and life spontaneously just came out of no where. Without anything causing. Is it more logical that primates just got a big brain and ingenuity and moral values through evolutions and became humans? Other animals cant even make a piece of paper. And we have created so much. I think its more logical for something to cause this. And if there is a substantial amount of proof pointing towards the idea, not proving, but pointing towards i would pick the more logical.
How is no gods more logical. Is it more logical that something came from nothing and the universe just popped out of no where and time and space were created.
The most accurate answer for "how was everything created" is merely "I don't know". Just because religion has a definitive answer, and science does not, does not mean that religion is correct. If anything it implies the arrogance of religion for having an answer despite no evidence, and the humility of science for admitting it doesn't know and having little evidence.
Is it more logical that space is randomly perfect for life and life spontaneously just came out of no where
Space is not perfect for life, most of the universe is uninhabitable and hostile to life. The universe is a very dangerous place. And there is almost certainly other life out there, likely intelligent. There are billions of galaxies, each with billions of solar systems, and just in our own branch of the milky way we've already found a few hundred extra solar planets, some earth sized or in their habitable zones.
Is it more logical that primates just got a big brain and ingenuity and moral values through evolutions and became humans?
Yes, it is more logical that evolution gave us our brains and such than to assume it was the work of a higher supernatural being. To believe otherwise is to lay the basis of your worldview on supernaturalism.
And if there is a substantial amount of proof pointing towards the idea, not proving, but pointing towards i would pick the more logical.
It just so turns out that all the evidence points to agnostic atheism being the most rational position. The evidence does not point towards god existing and him having created everything.
There are 3 things atheists can NEVER prove without using theories or speculation. How did the universe come to exist, how did life form on earth spontaneously, and how did this life evolve into Humans that have such advanced ingenuity and morale. Other religions technically don't 'prove' anything without hypothesizes and speculation too. This isn't a argument.
The idea of atheism is flawed and has no backing. How is it flawed? And how do you see it as less probable?
Islam is an idea. And that idea has nothing contradicting against it. Christianities trinity goes against the idea of time and space. Hinduisms gods just cannot against. Islam says that god exists OUTSIDE of time and space. And time and space were obviously created so something had to create it. Surely it isnt proven with facts but it has nothing going against it and it is probable. On the other hand Atheism has those 3 things that cant be answered therefore it shouldnt be followed. You shouldnt have faith in something that has things going against it. Which is why you shouldnt be a christian, hindu or atheist. I doubt you can find one major thing that goes against the idea of Islam.
Interesting topic. I've long respected Islam's acceptance of science. I've read of Alhazen a pioneer of the scientific method, the term "All praise belongs to God, Lord of the Worlds." is amazing in it's day. This is a tough one for me because I have little practical knowledge of the Quran. I apologize in advance for my ignorance but I'd really like to learn more on this topic. So let's start at the beginning. My understanding is that the Quran in essence agrees with the Bible that God created the earth in six dys. I disagree. Want to start the debate here ? I'll represent the "scientific view" if you would be so gracious as to present the Islamic view.
Considering that your post doesn't directly argue the topic at hand, wouldn't it be better to have it down as a 'clarify'. Or maybe you could just message him. If you're not talking or making arguments on the topic given, you really shouldn't 'support', nor 'dispute' it. It doesn't really matter to me all that much, I just wanted to inform you of this...
Actually yes and no. The 6 days refer to a metaphorical period of time. Days refers to stages. The word has double meanings in arabic. Like the word day and period were the same. OBVIOUSLY he didnt do it in 6 days but it was done over 6 period or stages.
Why does it lie? You can't say "The Quran fits all science" and then tell me day means something that isn't a day.
If it was translated as day by the translators who translated it, if the clerics or priests or whoever translated it said "days" and not "aeons" then there is a large difference.
That's stupid. There are words like "period" or "aeon", "era", "billions and billions of years" that you can use.
Not "DAY".
And what do you mean 'obviously'? There are many Christians who believe it WAS 6 days exactly. Because you both worship the God of Abraham, I can already see you are full of shit and lying and stretching the truth to suit your means.
Are you stupid. I said the word period and day are the same word in Arabic. God finish reading my answer. The arabic word is like yaeom i dont know how to spell it exactly. But it means like day or period. I can easily relate because in Hindi there is a word just like that. Its harder for you to get it in english. But it doesnt matter. Because the muslim world agrees, we dont need to change anything so you people can like it. The word means both.
AND JUST CAUSE CHRISTIANS BELIEVE IN A GOD THAT TRANSFORMS INTO A HUMAN AND 3 PARTS DOESNT MEAN WE DO. LOL. WHAT THE HELL. Abrahamic religions arent the same bro
That same argument of a day being a metaphorical period of time could be used to argue the validity of the Bible as the word Yowm in hebrew can mean time in general, a day or a specific point in time or a year.
To me one does not make more or less sense than the other as religous beliefs (or lack of them) is a personal thing and every person will think their belief makes more sense than someone else's and this is one thing that I have found is next to impossible to change someone's mind about no matter how good your argument or proof is.
Um... that's not atheism you're talking about, it's science. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god or any deities. But either way, there being no gods is far more logical than there being one or some.
Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god or any deities - the definition of atheism. That's why.
Science is about logic and evidence. Atheism does not use those, it is simply supported by them, since everything so far tells that there most likely (not just likely actually... there really is no god) is no god.
Everything has a sense of 'logic'. Atheism is a belief. So if someone born on earth, with human parents, believed with all of their heart that they were a alien, would that not be illogical? Just like atheism it's just a belief.
I think atheism is more logical in the sense... Say we made a pie graph. One side being atheism-like thoughts and ideas. The other side being all of the other religions in the world that believe in some sort of deity. That seems reasonable enough, right? There is a 50:50 chance of there being a god after all. Now since all of these religions are grouped in half this graph, if we were to single out one of these religions, the chances would probably be less then 1. In which atheism is more logical being that it has a 50% chance of being right in comparison to less then 1%
Atheism is a lack of belief in deities. I fall under the description of atheism, not because I choose not to believe but because I never have, because it is the default mind-set of every single human, assuming they aren't brainwashed and have always had enough knowledge to make the right conclusions about everything.
Atheism - the lack of belief in any god - is more logical, since there is no evidence and logic is against their existence.
There is a 50:50 chance of there being a god after all.
No that's 100:0.
The fact that there are so many religions and they all claim their gods to be real does not add up to 50, all the religions lower each one's probability of being real - many religions, all claiming to be true, all saying there absolutely is this god and that while they all contradict each other makes them all 100% invalid. You add them all up and the chance goes to zero.
You can't know something that you cannot know, and if someone makes something up without any evidence and then starts ascribing characteristics to it, as if it really is so... that's just wrong. Unless and it's what fantasy and science fiction writers do, and I have done.
it is the default mind-set That's untrue. Agnostic atheism would much more support the idea of 'default mind-set' being that they aren't taught that there is no god, as 'default' they wouldn't have any opinions. They'd have to make up something of their own, or as things normally go, they'd get their religious choice from their parents or something of the sort.
The fact that there are so many religions and they all claim their gods to be real does not add up to 50, all the religions lower each one's probability of being real - many religions, all claiming to be true, all saying there absolutely is this god and that while they all contradict each other makes them all 100% invalid. You add them all up and the chance goes to zero The 50% is the idea of there being a deity(s) of some sort. They are all posabilities, plus infinite more ideas that no one has thought of. But the fact it, no matter what, it does total to 50% They don't contradict each other in any way, and you should explain why you'd think that they would. They way you speak makes it seem that there is a 100% chance of there being no god, while that isn't true at all. I didn't bother saying this because it would complicate things, but in my point of veiw it atheism would be spread out much more, there's the idea that a god or gods created the universe, there is the idea that the universe just appeared out of nowhere(Atheism) there are also many other possibilities, most of which I can't think of. The world has a infinite amount of possibilities, and none of them are 100% as of now.
Agnostic atheism would much more support the idea of 'default mind-set' being that they aren't taught that there is no god
I was not taught that there is no god. I was not taught that there is a god. I was taught nothing in these regards. There is no god - something I have concluded myself from logic, evidence, and, most importantly, from complete lack of evidence, and countless fiction works I know are out there, two of which are my own.
Someone can know about the concept of god only if that person is taught about it. Every person is born without knowing anything about the concept of god - atheistic - they do not believe in any gods - the default mind set.
as 'default' they wouldn't have any opinions.
And if the person grows up, supported only by real knowledge, not fantasy and delusions, then the person will be atheistic.
The 50% is the idea of there being a deity(s) of some sort.
You got it so wrong.
I can literally make up billions of ideas for different gods, assuming I could live that long. It would then not be your 50:50, it would be something like 99:1. The 99 being there is a god or gods. That's not how things work. If it were so then how could the smallest possibility - us, our universe, godless - exist?
The only possibility that is is that there might be some very powerful beings of unknown characteristics somewhere out there, but there is no way to know.
If you think it is possible that there are some gods of defined characteristics then you must also believe that the story of Harry Potter, LOTR, or any fictional work, can be real. If you don't you're a hypocrite.
Also, there absolutely is no magic or supernatural (meaning fantasy works are not real, and that also means the gods made up by humans are not real). If it exists it is natural and can, or could, be explained by science if it were advanced enough.
They way you speak makes it seem that there is a 100% chance of there being no god, while that isn't true at all.
Exactly. There absolutely is no god. Powerful beings of unknown characteristics? Don't know, can't know.
there's the idea that a god or gods created the universe, there is the idea that the universe just appeared out of nowhere(Atheism)
You're still not getting it. The only definition atheism has is the lack of belief in a god or gods. It says nothing about how our universe came to exist.
The world has a infinite amount of possibilities, and none of them are 100% as of now.
Very wrong. Infinite would also mean the impossible. What is impossible is impossible, that which is impossible cannot exist.
Or you mean universes made of different stuff where the "rules" are completely different? So many different worlds that there is no end to them? That the impossible ones aren't even needed to be included to have infinity?
There is no logic stating that god is a impossibility. And you don't need to state the obvious of what you're 'taught' Atheist is still not a default setting, for it still hold beliefs. I still say agnostic is a default since as the definition says, it looks at the 'truth' aspect.
And if the person grows up, supported only by real knowledge, not fantasy and delusions, then the person will be atheistic. Still false. Knowledge would show that a 'god' is still a possibility. A implosable one, but still. A baseless statement does not hold argumentative value.
I can literally make up billions of ideas for different gods, assuming I could live that long. It would then not be your 50:50, it would be something like 99:1. The 99 being there is a god or gods. That's not how things work. If it were so then how could the smallest possibility - us, our universe, godless - exist? This makes no sense. Being that we can't know the true possability of god, or even comprehend all of the idea's and thought that go with the creation of the universe at this point we must see it simularly to the 'schrodinger's cat' experiment. In which, until we find more information on the issue, it's 50:50. No matter how many deities you can think of, it wouldn't affect the % of the chart that shows that there is no god, and it you can think, you shoulf beable to figure that out.
Exactly. There absolutely is no god. Powerful beings of unknown characteristics? Don't know, can't know. Obviously you can't know, but that doesn't eliminate the possibility. That was a rather idiotic statement you made..
You're still not getting it. The only definition atheism has is the lack of belief in a god or gods. It says nothing about how our universe came to exist How am I not getting it? There are two idea's, god created the universe, and atheism, who generally think that the world was created in some more natural manor, unrelated to deities.
Very wrong. Infinite would also mean the impossible. Once again, a very, very, stupid statement. So tell me, just because there are a infinite number of ways for me to get up in the morning, does that mean that getting up is impossible?
There is no logic stating that god is a impossibility.
Yes there is. Magic does not exist, but magic is something the existence of a god would require.
And you don't need to state the obvious of what you're 'taught'
As I already said, I am not taught to be an atheist, neither am I taught to be religious. In fact, I do not call myself an atheist, but according to the definition I am one.
I also explained how and why atheistic mind-set is the default one.
I still say agnostic is a default since as the definition says, it looks at the 'truth' aspect.
The truth is that there is no god. Powerful beings, maybe, but no gods. I also said that the only way for a person to know about the concept of god is if that person was taught about it.
Still false. Knowledge would show that a 'god' is still a possibility. A implosable one, but still. A baseless statement does not hold argumentative value.
Not false. If it were false I would not have the opinions I do.
The only providing baseless statements is you.
God is not a possibility. If it were, magic would also be and there is no magic.
Being that we can't know the true possability of god, or even comprehend all of the idea's and thought that go with the creation of the universe at this point we must see it simularly to the 'schrodinger's cat' experiment.
The truth is that the concept of god is made up by humans, a stupid concept at that. At one point it was a simple explanation for everything, but now we, or rather many of us it seems, know better.
In which, until we find more information on the issue, it's 50:50.
All a person could say is that it might have been a very powerful being of unknown characteristics, without sounding insane. If to go further, without having any knowledge, and begin ascribing defined characteristics then that is being stupid.
Gods are creatures of defined characteristics, creatures we do not and can not know anything about. Claiming they are real or might be real is stupid. You must also think all fictional works can be real too.
Do you also think it is possible for there to be a god made of carrots who poops universes made of potatoes?
Say it was true. What created god, where did it come from? Where did that come from and that and that and... An endless and pointless cycle that does not make sense. Unless there is no god and all this just is, just happened so, simply one state of many that is not controlled or determined by anyone.
No matter how many deities you can think of, it wouldn't affect the % of the chart that shows that there is no god, and it you can think, you shoulf beable to figure that out.
You're not getting it. There is this, present, where is no god. Then there are all the fantastical ideas of gods. All those ideas, including no god, run separately. It's not 50:50 of there being or not being a god, it's 99,9...:0,0...1. All the different versions of different gods do not count up to 50, they all run separately, contradicting each other. Each idea on that chart should be equal to every other one. Then you compare godless versus god present and it's the 99:1 I said. So, I ask you, where is this god of one of those possibilities? There is no god.
Obviously you can't know, but that doesn't eliminate the possibility. That was a rather idiotic statement you made..
It eliminates the possibility if it contradicts logic, if it is impossible. Why aren't you arguing over whether Harry Potter, the whole story, really happened somewhere? Because you know it is all made up! The same applies here!
I have written a fantasy story, a short one. Is it possible that that story is real somewhere out there? No! Because I made it all up!
Then I also have ideas for other stories. One idea in particular, the world it is in is... big, you have no idea how big. You think that world exists somewhere out there? No! Because I made it up!
You think I am making idiotic statements? Then I am asking you why are you being such an idiot and not debate over the actual existence of every fictional work ever created? Why cut it down to some few characters from those works? Why not the whole things? Because if you take all of it together it is obvious to every sane person that none of it is and can be real. It's either all of it or none of it. The best you can say is something I've already repeated some times - there might very powerful beings of unknown characteristics, but don't know and can't know.
How am I not getting it? There are two idea's, god created the universe, and atheism, who generally think that the world was created in some more natural manor, unrelated to deities.
You really are not getting it.
Atheism - the lack of belief in any deity, or any god. That's all there is to it, that's all atheism is. The rest you've talked about have other words, like certain scientific theories.
Atheists generally think the world was not created by any god because they are free to observe everything rationally, without some idiotic book telling them they will go to hell if they do. They are actually thinking about the real world, how it really works, what actually is real. Yes, many of them are also such fucking idiots, but they all have one in common - no god, no religion - freedom of mind.
Once again, a very, very, stupid statement. So tell me, just because there are a infinite number of ways for me to get up in the morning, does that mean that getting up is impossible?
Did you read all I said? Or are you like most religious idiots who like denying and ignoring? I hope not. Or you simply couldn't comprehend the rest?
Yes there is. Magic does not exist, but magic is something the existence of a god would require. If magic is needed for 'god', then wouldn't magic also be needed for our creation and the universe? All of this stuff can't be explained by our logic.
As I already said, I am not taught to be an atheist, neither am I taught to be religious. In fact, I do not call myself an atheist, but according to the definition I am one. Yes, again, I asked you to please not state the obvious. It's a wastes time -_-
The truth is that there is no god. Powerful beings, maybe, but no gods. I also said that the only way for a person to know about the concept of god is if that person was taught about it.
Show proof that there is no such thing as a god, then I might listen to your opinions, although, obviously, there is no such proof, therefore your opinions shall go unheard.
Not false. If it were false I would not have the opinions I do.
Your opinions are based on your stupidity, your opinions based on your 'logic'
If it were, magic would also be and there is no magic. If there is no such thing as magic, tell me where we all came from? The universe too. Even the big bang doesn't explain where all of this came from.
Do you also think it is possible for there to be a god made of carrots who poops universes made of potatoes? It is a possibility. A very unlikely one. Humans are stupid creatures. We can't rule things out just because it seems unplossable.
Say it was true. What created god, where did it come from? Where did that come from and that and that and... An endless and pointless cycle that does not make sense. Unless there is no god and all this just is, just happened so, simply one state of many that is not controlled or determined by anyone.
The idea of a god is just as stupid as there not being a god. What created the universe? Where did it come from? Make a decent argument for once, please.
There is this, present, where is no god. Again, prove that there is no god, or else you're making baseless statements.
Claiming they are real or might be real is stupid. Oh really? A long time ago someone claimed that the earth traveled around the sun, people thought of him as a idiot. Now who are the idiots? Just because someone can't prove something at the time, doesn't make them wrong. Even if they don't ever prove it, it doesn't make it wrong.
where is this god of one of those possibilities? Where is he not a possibility? All of the different religions and ideas of god don't contradict each other they just are more of the possibilities.
It eliminates the possibility if it contradicts logic. Are you unaware of the 11 dimensions? Those describe that there are a infinite amount of universes, all with different laws and different 'logic'. The idea of 'god' would make him a 10th denominational being. This would make him capable of dealing with any of these laws, being that the 10th dimension describes everything, literally... kinda. In that idea, god would be able to create things out of nothing, change the time line as we know it. Ect.
I have written a fantasy story, a short one. Is it possible that that story is real somewhere out there? No! Because I made it all up A made up fantasy isn't the same thing as a made up idea. Gods, the laws of the universe, science. Those are idea's that we've made up, many of which we've 'proven'. Books, dreams, fantasy's, those are 'stories' that have no real meaning.
Then I am asking you why are you being such an idiot and not debate over the actual existence of every fictional work ever created? because you're making idiotic statements without proof. I've not said that anything exists, nor that anything doesn't exist. I'm just making the point that there are possibilities that you're idiotically ignoring.
Because if you take all of it together it is obvious to every sane person that none of it is and can be real. So are you saying that more then 80% of the world is not sane? Including most of the greatest scientists of time?
there might very powerful beings of unknown characteristics, but don't know and can't know. If this is true, then why do you keep saying that deities can't, and don't exist?
no god, no religion - freedom of mind. This may be true, but atheism still has more religious beliefs then agnostic, in which making agnostic even more free.
Did you read all I said? Or are you like most religious idiots who like denying and ignoring? I hope not. Or you simply couldn't comprehend the rest?
What kind of argument is this xD Or is it that you can't come up with anything to respond so you just decided to insult me? That's really childish. And religious? I must point out again that I'm agnostic. I don't have any religious beliefs. If anything you're the one denying and ignoring. Especially since you can't seem to comprehend all of the possibilities out there. You haven't made one logical argument on this topic yet.
If magic is needed for 'god', then wouldn't magic also be needed for our creation and the universe? All of this stuff can't be explained by our logic.
I didn't mean for god, I meant god would require the existence of magic in order to exist.
By our logic? You mean that our science is simply not that advanced as to explain it all? In case you haven't noticed, our knowledge of everything is increasing day by day, even though slowly. If we will survive for millions, perhaps billions, of years as a species then we will have the necessary logic to explain whatever you think we can't.
Yes, again, I asked you to please not state the obvious. It's a wastes time -_-
I said something and you ignored that part completely. So I said it again. You want me to say it again or you understood the second time?
Show proof that there is no such thing as a god, then I might listen to your opinions, although, obviously, there is no such proof, therefore your opinions shall go unheard.
The first claim was that there is a god, yet no evidence, no proof, was provided. I am not the one who has to prove the nonexistence of a god that is nowhere to be seen anyway. If someone claims something to exist then that someone has to prove it. Where is the proof for a god? Where? There is none because there is no god.
Your opinions are based on your stupidity, your opinions based on your 'logic'
This describes you rather precisely. You are definitely stupid. And your logic is lacking.
If there is no such thing as magic, tell me where we all came from? The universe too. Even the big bang doesn't explain where all of this came from.
The big bang. The end, or should be anyway. Or rather the beginning... Everything that exists within this universe came from the bang. Where did what preceded the bang come from? A different state of existence of all the energy and matter our universe is made of.
It is a possibility.
It is not a possibility; it is literally impossible.
Humans are stupid creatures.
You perhaps. I know I am not stupid, I also know I am not the smartest person, probably... in certain areas definitely not.
We can't rule things out just because it seems unplossable.
God made of carrots pooping out universes made of potatoes is absolutely impossible everywhere. Every sane person should be able to understand that without any explanation.
If we didn't rule out crap we would still be sacrificing people to nonexistent gods. You must also think it would be wise to do just that to simply rule out one "possibility" of our extinction. That is very stupid.
I could easily give you such idiotic examples... but I think I know what your answer to the possibility of the existence of those would be.
Just because we can come up with any kind of nonsense does not mean it can be possible somewhere.
You don't seem to differentiate possibilities and impossibilities.
The idea of a god is just as stupid as there not being a god.
Wrong. Only the idea of god is very stupid. To explain how our universe came to be requires no god, therefore godless existence is not stupid at all.
What created the universe
Nothing created it. It sort of created itself through natural processes.
Where did it come from?
Don't know. But definitely a different state of existence.
Make a decent argument for once, please.
This I actually laughed at. You fail to do just that yet you want me to do it? Don't be such a hypocrite, or be if you want.
Again, prove that there is no god, or else you're making baseless statements.
As there has never been provided any evidence for the existence of god I am not making baseless arguments. Someone has to first prove god exists since that is the first claim done. Where is the proof? You can't give me any because there isn't any because there is no god.
Oh really? A long time ago someone claimed that the earth traveled around the sun, people thought of him as a idiot. Now who are the idiots?
Because the people saying he was an idiot were the idiots, through brainwashing and indoctrination, because of religion.
Just because someone can't prove something at the time, doesn't make them wrong. Even if they don't ever prove it, it doesn't make it wrong.
"At the time..." Funny, as there are already explanations for how we came to be, explanation that are experimented, tested, proved to be true and real. Explanations that refute god. If something proved to be real and at the same time so strongly contradicts god then god is wrong, is false, does not exist. It is no longer even a possibility.
Where is he not a possibility? All of the different religions and ideas of god don't contradict each other they just are more of the possibilities.
I asked for the proof of a god.
Every religion contradicts every other religion. They all claim influence over the same aspects in their own way. It can only be one of them and no other, which basically means all of them are untrue. It means none of them should be taken seriously.
Are you unaware of the 11 dimensions?
No, and neither do I care.
Those describe that there are a infinite amount of universes, all with different laws and different 'logic'.
So?
The idea of 'god' would make him a 10th denominational being.
I'll just go with would not...
This would make him capable of dealing with any of these laws, being that the 10th dimension describes everything, literally... kinda.
Don't be so credulous.
In that idea, god would be able to create things out of nothing, change the time line as we know it. Ect.
Creating something from nothing is not possible.
By the way, no such thing as time. It's basically an illusion.
A made up fantasy isn't the same thing as a made up idea.
It is exactly the same.
Gods, the laws of the universe, science. Those are idea's that we've made up, many of which we've 'proven'.
Science is knowledge of existence, basically. It includes how our universe works, it does not include god.
Books, dreams, fantasy's, those are 'stories' that have no real meaning.
Thank you for saying god has no real meaning. All I ever wanted to hear.
because you're making idiotic statements without proof.
Where is your proof? Care to clarify that?
I've not said that anything exists, nor that anything doesn't exist. I'm just making the point that there are possibilities that you're idiotically ignoring.
You really cannot differentiate possibilities and impossibilities. Who's being the idiot now?
It's funny actually... I see valid possibilities rather easily. One of the reasons I go for science fiction and high fantasy writing.
So are you saying that more then 80% of the world is not sane?
I didn't say that, didn't even think about it at that moment, but yes, it is correct. About that much of humanity is not sane, is definitely delusional. But don't worry, it is slowly changing for the better.
Including most of the greatest scientists of time?
Being good at physics or chemistry, or any scientific field, does not necessarily mean the person is straight in the head when it comes to certain other topics.
If this is true, then why do you keep saying that deities can't, and don't exist?
Because people ascribe characteristics to them, for one. Another one, where did they come from? Were they once just like us, part of some species in some universe? They would be just like us, simply very old, smart, and powerful. They would know better than to be something revered or venerated by some cultists, they would not let that happen, they would not let such idiocy hinder progress of some inferior creatures.
The only possibility is that every god we "know of" is made up by us and not actually real.
This may be true, but atheism still has more religious beliefs then agnostic, in which making agnostic even more free.
Atheism has zero religious beliefs. Or would you like to clarify the definitions of "religious" you are referring to?
What kind of argument is this xD Or is it that you can't come up with anything to respond so you just decided to insult me?
Wasn't an insult. It was a question. And you ignored something and only replied to which preceded that.
That's really childish. And religious?
It wasn't childish. I've had experience with that kind of behavior many many times, as have others on this site.
You don't seem to have much experience debating religious people, I have some... the ones I have debated have lacked quite a bit of mental capacity.
I must point out again that I'm agnostic. I don't have any religious beliefs.
That's why I said "like" them.
If anything you're the one denying and ignoring.
Like what?
Especially since you can't seem to comprehend all of the possibilities out there.
I comprehend all the possibilities. You simply take impossibilities as possibilities.
You haven't made one logical argument on this topic yet.
Are you saying you have? I assure you, you haven't.
By our logic? You mean that our science is simply not that advanced as to explain it all? Our logic can't explain 'magic'.
I said something and you ignored that part completely. So I said it again. You want me to say it again or you understood the second time? You're just saying the obvious and I don't want you to say it period, how hard is that to understand?!?
The first claim was that there is a god, yet no evidence, no proof, was provided. I am not the one who has to prove the nonexistence of a god that is nowhere to be seen anyway. If someone claims something to exist then that someone has to prove it. Where is the proof for a god? Where? There is none because there is no god. I don't believe in god and I never stated that there IS a god, I've just stated that it is a possibility. I have nothing to prove, unlike you apparently.
This describes you rather precisely. You are definitely stupid. And your logic is lacking. Yes another baseless statement? Instead of repeatedly saying idiotic thing, why don't you actually make a argument. For example, instead of just repeating my argument against you, against me, but without any basis, you actually refer to something making it valid. Not that I expect you to be capable of that much.
The big bang. The end, or should be anyway. Or rather the beginning... Everything that exists within this universe came from the bang. Where did what preceded the bang come from? A different state of existence of all the energy and matter our universe is made of. The theory of the big bang is that everything was compressed into a speck smaller then a atom, and it went BOOM. Where did this speck come from? You shouldn't argue something that you know so little about. Especially when your argument explains literally nothing. If I didn't know anything about the big bang I'd be asking you tons of questions instead of this.
It is not a possibility; it is literally impossible. Again, baseless. Explain yourself and show proof. unless you're TRYING to make yourself look stupid, if that was that case then you're doing a good job.
You perhaps. I know I am not stupid, I also know I am not the smartest person, probably... in certain areas definitely not. No, we're all stupid. In many ways we're more stupid then the unintelligent creatures on this planet. We still have a long way to go before I personally will see such a idiotic race as smart. Although I do admit that as of now we are the smartest race known.
God made of carrots pooping out universes made of potatoes is absolutely impossible everywhere. Every sane person should be able to understand that without any explanation. I'm quite sure I tried to explain the 10 dimensions to you. Each dimension has their different rules and different laws. Just because it's not possible doesn't mean it's not possible elsewhere. You should really framilurize yourself with some of the basic science of today before you try to make any arguments.
If we didn't rule out crap we would still be sacrificing people to nonexistent gods. You must also think it would be wise to do just that to simply rule out one "possibility" of our extinction. That is very stupid. Most of the world never 'sacrificed' people to gods. The reason we stopped was because other 'religions' went against those ones. And just so you know, there are some cultures out there that still do that, so technically we haven't stopped.
Wrong. Only the idea of god is very stupid. To explain how our universe came to be requires no god, therefore godless existence is not stupid at all. Again, try yo explain yourself. I'm getting tired of having nothing to argue because of such baseless statements. Is that head of yours capable of logical thinking?
Nothing created it. It sort of created itself through natural processes. And tell me how you see that as possible?
This I actually laughed at. You fail to do just that yet you want me to do it? Don't be such a hypocrite, or be if you want. The only thing I've done is counter your arguments. I have no reason to make your arguments. Or if you meant that I need to make a decent counter, then maybe you should go back to 3rd grade for some vocab lessons.
As there has never been provided any evidence for the existence of god I am not making baseless arguments.
Not having evidence doesn't rule out the possibility. Do I really need to bring up the idea of when people thought that the world was flat again?
You can't give me any because there isn't any because there is no god. I don't want to prove there is a god. I'm just saying that you shouldn't say there isn't one when there isn't proof AGAINST the idea. Just like people shouldn't have said that the world is flat without any proof for that. It slowed down our progress, much like people like you do to our age right now.
Because the people saying he was an idiot were the idiots, through brainwashing and indoctrination, because of religion. Yes -_- it was a meteorically question dumb one. It's a example of how just because you don't believe in something or think that it's possible, it doesn't make it impossible.
Are you unaware of the 11 dimensions?
No, and neither do I care. Well then why am I talking to you? If you're mind is still in the year of 1865, I have no reason to even try reasoning with you. Science helps us describe the world, and if you're so ancient and un-knowledgeable with the world, how are you supposed to know anything, let alone the 'non-existence' of god.
I asked for the proof of a god.
I don't want to prove what I don't personally believe in myself.
Every religion contradicts every other religion. They all claim influence over the same aspects in their own way. It can only be one of them and no other, which basically means all of them are untrue. It means none of them should be taken seriously. STUPID. ugh. This is like saying that we had 100 rags, all of different color. We put one in a box at random. NOW YOU'D BE SAYING NOTHING IS IN THE BOX CUZ IT 'CONTRADICTS THE OTHERS'. Since we don't know anything about deities nor the existence of deities we're supposed to see them all as possibilities. Drat, I forgot. You don't understand ma mathematics.
"At the time..." Funny, as there are already explanations for how we came to be, explanation that are experimented, tested, proved to be true and real. Explanations that refute god. If something proved to be real and at the same time so strongly contradicts god then god is wrong, is false, does not exist. It is no longer even a possibility. There is nothing that proves god doesn't exist. If that were true that that would make the majority of the world idiots for believing in them/him/her. There are many scientific ideas and explanations for the world, none of which disproves god.
Don't be so credulous. This is one of those proved sciences that you talk 'so much about'. The 10 dimensions are proved. They also help show the possibility of god if you study it a while. The idea of the 10 dimensions were discovered when people were researching M-theory, and now they've proved the 10 dimensions, being that the universe couldn't exist without them, as it seems.
Creating something from nothing is not possible. You practically stated that it is when you said that the universe formed on it's own 'naturally'.
By the way, no such thing as time. It's basically an illusion. Time is the 4th dimensions. We don't see time since we're in the 3rd dimension. It does exist, although we're unable to really see it. Although some people have argued that we're 4th dimensional creatures due to our memory and ability to 'look back' Although that was obviously proved wrong.
A made up fantasy isn't the same thing as a made up idea.
It is exactly the same.
Are fantasies and ideas the same thing? I think not.
Science is knowledge of existence, basically. It includes how our universe works, it does not include god. I never said it included god. So I ask you again, stop stating the obvious.
Books, dreams, fantasy's, those are 'stories' that have no real meaning.
Thank you for saying god has no real meaning. All I ever wanted to hear.
God is not a book, dream, or fantasy, although he is in many books, dreams and fantasys.
I didn't say that, didn't even think about it at that moment, but yes, it is correct. About that much of humanity is not sane, is definitely delusional. But don't worry, it is slowly changing for the better. Wow, for you to think that, I just find it funny. But I will point out that the only place in the world that the idea of atheism is going up by much is in the U.S.
Atheism has zero religious beliefs. Or would you like to clarify the definitions of "religious" you are referring to? Religious belief is defined as a strong belief in the supernatural. Are you to say that the universe coming out of nowhere isn't supernatural?
Agnostic people do not have any particular beliefs, that being said, they have less religious beliefs.
You really cannot differentiate possibilities and impossibilities. Who's being the idiot now? Impossibilities? No one on this planet have ever proved that god is impossible. I in no way see how I am being a idiot, being that I've not stated anything as "This is how it is"
They would know better than to be something revered or venerated by some cultists, they would not let that happen, they would not let such idiocy hinder progress of some inferior creatures. Baseless and what if they did know better but they couldn't care less?
Wasn't an insult. It was a question. And you ignored something and only replied to which preceded that. It may have been in the form of a question, but it most certainly was a insult.
It wasn't childish. I've had experience with that kind of behavior many many times, as have others on this site. Well that just makes the childish too, now doesn't it?
You don't seem to have much experience debating religious people, I have some... the ones I have debated have lacked quite a bit of mental capacity. I've debated enough, and I don't consider any of them to have been loses. At best I may have had a tie. As for this one. I most certainly don't consider my state to be losing, even if you do see it differently. After all, I don't care about your opinion that much.
Like what?
Are you really asking that question despite me just bringing it up? This doesn't even deserve a answer. You ignore the possibilities.
I comprehend all the possibilities. You simply take impossibilities as possibilities. Well I don't see things that haven't been proven wrong, in all ways, to be a impossibility. After all, when something is not proven wrong then what would make it impossible?
Are you saying you have? I assure you, you haven't.
"So tell me, just because there are a infinite number of ways for me to get up in the morning, does that mean that getting up is impossible?" Remember this statement from earlier? Explain to me in detail how it's not 'logical'.
If magic existed and our science would be advanced enough we could explain it.
You're just saying the obvious and I don't want you to say it period, how hard is that to understand?!?
So you did not understand something very simple.
I'll just leave you with your willful ignorance.
I don't believe in god and I never stated that there IS a god, I've just stated that it is a possibility. I have nothing to prove, unlike you apparently.
The only possibility is that there might be some powerful beings. That's all. The one's depicted having defined characteristics and human qualities are all nonexistent, they're not even possibilities.
Also. I am not the one who has to prove anything. If someone claims there is a god then that person has to prove it. The first claim was not that there is no god, it was that there is and not just some god but one or more with defined human characteristics. Where is the proof supporting the first claim? I am simply stating the obvious - that the first claim is completely wrong.
Yes another baseless statement?
Not baseless at all. From observation and consideration of your arguments.
Instead of repeatedly saying idiotic thing, why don't you actually make a argument.
You should consider taking some of your own advice.
For example, instead of just repeating my argument against you, against me, but without any basis, you actually refer to something making it valid. Not that I expect you to be capable of that much.
The only one arguing without any basis is you. I have logic supporting me, what do you have? It seems not only is your logic lacking but your whole mental capacity is rather low.
The theory of the big bang is that everything was compressed into a speck smaller then a atom, and it went BOOM.
It didn't go boom, it expanded very rapidly.
Where did this speck come from? You shouldn't argue something that you know so little about.
Apparently I know more than you.
Especially when your argument explains literally nothing.
Perhaps if you were able to look at your arguments you'd notice they are the ones not explaining a thing.
If I didn't know anything about the big bang I'd be asking you tons of questions instead of this.
Considering you "BOOM", perhaps you should.
Again, baseless. Explain yourself and show proof.
Baseless? Where is the proof to your arguments? Care to provide any?
unless you're TRYING to make yourself look stupid, if that was that case then you're doing a good job.
Explain this. Why are you being such a childish moron? I only call people stupid, idiotic, delusional, insane, etc. when I have sufficient basis for it. For example, when it is very clear from their arguments that they really are such. I don't start insulting people, ever, unless they begin to insult me first. I don't begin insulting because that is childish. Grow up.
Insulting is what I've encountered while "debating" religious people and when the debate gets to the point where they have to accept their defeat, that they are wrong. This here is similar, you have nothing else to say and insults are what you refer to.
No, we're all stupid.
You don't seem to know what stupid means. Or you simply don't know when its use is justified.
In many ways we're more stupid then the unintelligent creatures on this planet.
I'm not.
We still have a long way to go before I personally will see such a idiotic race as smart.
I look at the potential and disregard the stupid meat which unfortunately makes up most of humanity.
I'm quite sure I tried to explain the 10 dimensions to you.
There are no dimensions. Unless you mean different levels of existence, which in essence would be different universes, or worlds.
Each dimension has their different rules and different laws.
The laws and rules come from what they are made of - the energies, particles, matter, etc., and how they react with each other. There is nothing else, there are really not even any rules.
Just because it's not possible doesn't mean it's not possible elsewhere.
Yes it is. In order for it to work it has to be in the same place, with the same rules. If the place is different with different rules then it is not the same thing, it is something completely different. It cannot be the same. The carrot and potato thing... impossible everywhere.
You should really framilurize yourself with some of the basic science of today before you try to make any arguments.
And you should really not be so credulous.
And debating is about providing ones own thoughts and arguments.
Is there "time"? Is "time" part of the structure of our universe? No. I came up with it when I was 16 or 17. Years later in university I heard the professor explain the exact same thing I had already come up with on my own - that in reality there is no time, time is simply an illusion, even though a useful one.
Most of the world never 'sacrificed' people to gods.
Most? Doesn't matter at all. It is one of your possibilities and so you must think it should be done just in case. If you don't, you're a hypocrite.
The reason we stopped was because other 'religions' went against those ones. And just so you know, there are some cultures out there that still do that, so technically we haven't stopped.
So what if some went against? It doesn't change that it is one of the "possibilities" you so like considering as real. And the ones who still do, what if that is not enough?
Again, try yo explain yourself. I'm getting tired of having nothing to argue because of such baseless statements. Is that head of yours capable of logical thinking?
I am explaining myself just as much as you are yourself. Don't expect more from me than you are giving me.
I have actually explained rather well while you are giving nothing, like this and many previous pointless arguments where you literally gave nothing.
If you say or intend to say something, look at yourself first.
And tell me how you see that as possible?
Particles, energies, and whatever else are simply reacting with their environment. Nothing else to it.
The only thing I've done is counter your arguments.
A very poor job at that.
Or if you meant that I need to make a decent counter, then maybe you should go back to 3rd grade for some vocab lessons.
That's stupid. Before you make a claim be sure you are right. I'm not from US, neither is English my native language.
You do a good job of showing yourself as an immature blockhead.
Not having evidence doesn't rule out the possibility.
Logic does. And then you add the lack of evidence to it...
Do I really need to bring up the idea of when people thought that the world was flat again?
Exactly my point. Just because you make something up does not make it real.
But hey, maybe somewhere with the exact same "rules" except some minor differences the worlds really are flat, and on a turtle or a pig or on a flat slab of potato?
You don't seem to get how things work. On the universe's level, there are no rules, no languages, no nothing - everything just works as it does.
I don't want to prove there is a god. I'm just saying that you shouldn't say there isn't one when there isn't proof AGAINST the idea.
Logic is against it. Then the first claim thing also... I'm just saying the obvious.
Don't want to? Why? Because you can't?
It slowed down our progress, much like people like you do to our age right now.
You're immature alright.
It's a example of how just because you don't believe in something or think that it's possible, it doesn't make it impossible.
Nice grammar... thinking of the 3rd grade thingy you did up there...
It's not about what someone believes or disbelieves, it's about what is real and what is not.
Well then why am I talking to you?
Beats me.
If you're mind is still in the year of 1865, I have no reason to even try reasoning with you.
It's "your" not "you're".
Very mature of you, again.
Science helps us describe the world
Because it the knowledge of all existence, and it is still and will be advancing for as long as we exist.
and if you're so ancient and un-knowledgeable with the world, how are you supposed to know anything, let alone the 'non-existence' of god.
Ancient? I'm actually rather young.
Non-knowledgeable? I just think over what I hear, i don't blindly believe or follow anything. I have a rather high sense of logic, but you clearly don't.
If something is illogical, therefore impossible, then it's nonexistence is knowledge.
I don't want to prove what I don't personally believe in myself.
Then I advise you to shut up on the matter, or give me the proof which does not exist, and can't for a very obvious reason.
STUPID. ugh. This is like saying that we had 100 rags, all of different color. We put one in a box at random. NOW YOU'D BE SAYING NOTHING IS IN THE BOX CUZ IT 'CONTRADICTS THE OTHERS'. Since we don't know anything about deities nor the existence of deities we're supposed to see them all as possibilities. Drat, I forgot. You don't understand ma mathematics.
CAPS RAGE!!! URGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Anyway, not stupid at all.
Rags actually exist... Your example is futile.
Them all as possible? That only means none of them exist.
Mathematics? Maths is about numbers and equations. This here we are dealing with is logic of a slightly different kind.
There is nothing that proves god doesn't exist.
There is a lot. What is a god supposed to be like, what is a god supposed to have done? Then compare all that to actually verified scientific facts and experiments, logic too, and then you should be able to see that god indeed does not exist.
If that were true that that would make the majority of the world idiots for believing in them/him/her.
Would be? You got it wrong. They are. Majority of humanity consists entirely of idiots. Sad but true.
There are many scientific ideas and explanations for the world, none of which disproves god.
They disprove so many possibilities that you claim to be possible.
The 10 dimensions are proved.
I don't use "dimensions" to explain our universe. I look at it as a whole.
You practically stated that it is when you said that the universe formed on it's own 'naturally'.
How could you possibly misinterpret something so simple? Forming on its own, naturally, is not "from nothing".
Time is the 4th dimensions. We don't see time since we're in the 3rd dimension. It does exist, although we're unable to really see it. Although some people have argued that we're 4th dimensional creatures due to our memory and ability to 'look back' Although that was obviously proved wrong.
This is where it all begins to make sense... There are no dimensions, it's simply a means of interpretation, a stupid one at that.
There all the stuff our universe is made of, they interact, they affect each other one way or another, and we perceive that change. For some reason the change is named time and is taken as part of the structure of our universe while in reality it is simply an illusion.
There are all these ideas and stories of stopping time or going back or forward. There's just one issue with all of them - you can't stop, go back in, or forward in something that doesn't actually exist. But you could, I assume, stop what creates that change, somehow.
Are fantasies and ideas the same thing? I think not.
Essentially yes. Fantasies are usually built on ideas, unless ideas themselves are unreal. Or what exactly are you referring to? For example, to write a book you first need an idea. Everything in science was at one point an idea, some of them were proved real, others not.
I never said it included god. So I ask you again, stop stating the obvious.
The obvious? We seem to have a very different idea of "obvious"... So no, I won't stop.
God is not a book, dream, or fantasy, although he is in many books, dreams and fantasys.
God is a concept, an idea. It is no different from any of the other examples you gave.
And it's "fantasies".
Wow, for you to think that, I just find it funny.
Truth hurts, doesn't it? So you deny it and consider it as false and as a joke. It's not a joke, it's real. That much of humanity is messed up in the head. And as I also said, it is slowly changing.
But I will point out that the only place in the world that the idea of atheism is going up by much is in the U.S.
This is where I say WOOOOOOOOOOOOW!!! So ignorant, so stupid. You are so wrong. North Europe is about 80% atheist, as a whole. The country where I live is about 86% atheist, probably even more now. Like it or not, atheism is growing everywhere where people are free to think whatever they want.
Religious belief is defined as a strong belief in the supernatural.
This is one of the definitions. The most prominent one.
Are you to say that the universe coming out of nowhere isn't supernatural?
You think that is somehow connected to atheism? It is not. The small dot going "boom" is not creation from nothing. I would have expected you knew that.
Agnostic people do not have any particular beliefs, that being said, they have less religious beliefs.
Atheists have zero religious beliefs.
I in no way see how I am being a idiot, being that I've not stated anything as "This is how it is"
Because you are incapable of seeing how things really are.
Baseless and what if they did know better but they couldn't care less?
Baseless? Based on logic.
"Couldn't care less" is a human characteristic, a characteristic that requires stupidity. Someone that powerful and assumingly smart... enough said.
Something that powerful is very improbable to exist, as that being would know there is no meaning to anything, no purpose of any kind. Suicide comes to mind when thinking about existence like that. We still have something to go for - to find out everything about everything. But really, even that is pointless.
It may have been in the form of a question, but it most certainly was a insult.
It most certainly was not an insult.
I've debated enough, and I don't consider any of them to have been loses. At best I may have had a tie. As for this one. I most certainly don't consider my state to be losing, even if you do see it differently. After all, I don't care about your opinion that much.
It can't be a tie. Literally, cannot. It only means you were wrong too.
This one? You are losing, you have already lost. Don't care about my opinion? I've been doing this for fun anyway.
How can you not be losing if you were wrong about atheism? And the big bang that wasn't really a bang at all. Then the potato-carrot thing... Your childish behavior. You're wrong, you are the losing side.
Are you really asking that question despite me just bringing it up? This doesn't even deserve a answer. You ignore the possibilities.
This is very childish. If I were in your position I would've answered the question. You didn't answer, you didn't give any examples, meaning I have ignored nothing.
And this is exactly the same kind of behavior I have noticed while debating certain religious individuals. You are just as low as they are.
After all, when something is not proven wrong then what would make it impossible?
See, to disprove certain things you have to show that it is impossible to do it. Showing that kind of impossibility is actually done by doing nothing, because it cannot be done. If it cannot be done here it cannot be done anywhere, if the rules differ just a tiny portion the whole world differs completely, and the concept we came up here does not apply there, it cannot apply there 'cause the rulers are different.
"So tell me, just because there are a infinite number of ways for me to get up in the morning, does that mean that getting up is impossible?" Remember this statement from earlier? Explain to me in detail how it's not 'logical'.
Oh, right... it was where you ignored a part completely.
No, you explain to me how that is logical. You seem to think if one from infinity is impossible they are all impossible. And so you consider everything as possible.
If magic existed and our science would be advanced enough we could explain it. That's plain stupid. Magic is illogical. Science is logical. Science can not explain the illogical.
So you did not understand something very simple. How did I not understand it? You were just stating the obvious over and over again like a idiot and I was asking you to stop, what does that have to do with understanding? And how do you get "He doesn't understand this" From "Shut up, you don't need to speak of the obvious".
The one's depicted having defined characteristics and human qualities are all nonexistent, they're not even possibilities. They very much are. A all powerful being probably would always be 'defined' but they'd have the power to give themselves properties as they see fit.
The only one arguing without any basis is you. I have logic supporting me, what do you have? It seems not only is your logic lacking but your whole mental capacity is rather low. Again, you haven't shown any logic, just baseless statements of your own opinions. A opinion has no logic at all.
It didn't go boom, it expanded very rapidly. You're a idiot if you don't know the definitions of 'boom' It commonly refers to a noise, but it also can refer to rapid growth, as in reference to "economic boom" Those two words are put together are seem quite commonly.
Apparently I know more than you. Well again, prove it. Stop being a idiot and actually say something of worth. I'm not trying to prove anything other then to show you that you know nothing about god or deities, for humans are unable to know that type of thing at this point.
I only call people stupid, idiotic, delusional, insane, etc. when I have sufficient basis for it. And I'm no different. The only difference is, you're too dumb to realize how stupid you are, apparently.
unless they begin to insult me first. I don't begin insulting because that is childish. Grow up. And you show your stupidity again. You were the first one to show a insult. Why don't you read back.
This here is similar, you have nothing else to say and insults are what you refer to. Again, you're the first one that started using insults. And if I may, I said the same thing before, that insults is all that you have left. -_-
You don't seem to know what stupid means. Or you simply don't know when its use is justified. Stupid by definition is "Lacking intelligence or common sense." And we as human, lack intelligence. The average IQ in the U.S. is under 100. I think that you'd need to double that to be considered HALF way intelligent.
There are no dimensions. Unless you mean different levels of existence, which in essence would be different universes, or worlds. I'll just stop talking about it since you seem to know nothing about the topic. Just running through your own ideas is nothing, that's why scientists test out their hypothesis.
The laws and rules come from what they are made of - the energies, particles, matter, etc., and how they react with each other. There is nothing else, there are really not even any rules Different universes have different types of particles and 'matter'. Most don't even share out laws of physics.
Yes it is. In order for it to work it has to be in the same place, with the same rules. If the place is different with different rules then it is not the same thing, it is something completely different. It cannot be the same. The carrot and potato thing... impossible everywhere. Still baseless.
And you should really not be so credulous. I don't believe in anything other then possibilities. I would think I would have made that clear after telling you 5 times. Do you retain anything?
Is there "time"? Is "time" part of the structure of our universe? No. I came up with it when I was 16 or 17. Years later in university I heard the professor explain the exact same thing I had already come up with on my own - that in reality there is no time, time is simply an illusion, even though a useful one. To a lot of scientist time is considered a 'half' dimensions. To us 3rd dimensional beings it is but a illusion. That's obvious enough. But saying time doesn't exist would be plain stupid. That would be like saying that everything that happened last year... Well it never happened.
Most? Doesn't matter at all. It is one of your possibilities and so you must think it should be done just in case. If you don't, you're a hypocrite. It is a possibility, even so. If there were a god like that. Well that doesn't mean that I'd follow him. If it goes again my morals, that's all I need. Also, it's a possibility. Unlike you apparently, I don't go through with most things unless I'm certain. That's why I'm agnostic instead of a atheist. -_-
I am explaining myself just as much as you are yourself. Don't expect more from me than you are giving me. I'm giving you a idea (That you're illogically rejecting without a thought), you're giving me nothing.
If you say or intend to say something, look at yourself first. I very much have.
Particles, energies, and whatever else are simply reacting with their environment. Nothing else to it. And tell me where these particles, energies, and ect came from? It had to come from somewhere?
A very poor job at that. Poor arguments deserve poor counters.
That's stupid. Before you make a claim be sure you are right. I'm not from US, neither is English my native language. Is this supposed to matter? Many other countries are better with their english skills then the U.S, being that the U.S. is being overrun by idiotic 'slang'.
You do a good job of showing yourself as an immature blockhead. As do you.
Logic does. And then you add the lack of evidence to it... There is not logic against it.
Exactly my point. Just because you make something up does not make it real. Yes, but it doesn't make it unreal either.
You don't seem to get how things work. On the universe's level, there are no rules No rules? So you're saying that gravity isn't a rule? That the laws of physics aren't real?
Logic is against it. Then the first claim thing also... I'm just saying the obvious. Again, there is no such logic.
You're immature alright. I have no reason to act much more mature then those around me. For example, If I'm playing with my 1 year old niece, I don't want to act like all formal.
It's not about what someone believes or disbelieves, it's about what is real and what is not. Well then show proof instead of meaningless opinions.
It's "your" not "you're". Again, no need to state the obvious.
Ancient? I'm actually rather young. Ancient as in where you are at in modern knowledge.
Non-knowledgeable? I just think over what I hear, i don't blindly believe or follow anything. I have a rather high sense of logic, but you clearly don't. That's intellect, not knowledge. Even those with a extremely high IQ can be idiots if they don't study anything.
If something is illogical, therefore impossible, then it's nonexistence is knowledge. illogical doesn't mean impossible.
Then I advise you to shut up on the matter, or give me the proof which does not exist, and can't for a very obvious reason. There is no proof on anything in the topic of deities. That's what I'm trying to prove. Have I succeeded? I think so, since you've shown no evidence against the idea.
Rags actually exist... Your example is futile. Rags exist, that's why it's a good example. If I used a non-existing thing it wouldn't prove anything, while this proves a lot. If you choose not to follow the logic then that makes you nothing more then a idiot.
Them all as possible? That only means none of them exist. Again, a illogical thought. Another example. You're pregnant. There is a chance for you to have a boy or a girl. Because you don't know which one will come out does that mean that neither are possible? Obviously not.
Mathematics? Maths is about numbers and equations. This here we are dealing with is logic of a slightly different kind. Everything can be expressed with math.
non-verification is not proof against something, baka.
They disprove so many possibilities that you claim to be possible. Nothing is impossible.
How could you possibly misinterpret something so simple? Forming on its own, naturally, is not "from nothing". Well I asked where it came from and your response was 'naturally' things don't just appear out of no where 'naturally'. I didn't misinterpret it, you just aren't explaining anything in a non-idiotic way.
This is where it all begins to make sense... There are no dimensions, it's simply a means of interpretation, a stupid one at that. All ten dimensions are proved and all scientists that know about the studies agree with it. So your indirectly calling all of the smartest people alive stupid? I think that shows you're 'intelligence' much more then it does anyone elses.
For some reason the change is named time and is taken as part of the structure of our universe while in reality it is simply an illusion. in the 3rd dimension it is but a illusion. Doesn't mean it isn't there.
Essentially yes. Fantasies are usually built on ideas, unless ideas themselves are unreal. Or what exactly are you referring to? For example, to write a book you first need an idea. Everything in science was at one point an idea, some of them were proved real, others not. Water is 'built' out of hydrogen and oxygen. So are you saying that water is the same thing? If you had hydrogen and oxygen in the same room you don't get water.
Something that's obvious is something that almost everyone knows, or should know.
God is a concept, an idea. It is no different from any of the other examples you gave. That's just a opinion, nothing more.
Truth hurts, doesn't it? So you deny it and consider it as false and as a joke. It's not a joke, it's real. That much of humanity is messed up in the head. And as I also said, it is slowly changing. It's not true though. Unless you consider science and thought 'messed up'.
The small dot going "boom" is not creation from nothing. I would have expected you knew that. The small 'dot' is everything compressed into a tiny space. But that dot being there out of no where is creation from nothing.
Because you are incapable of seeing how things really are. I think it's the other way around being that there is no proof saying 'this is how it is'.
"Couldn't care less" is a human characteristic, a characteristic that requires stupidity. Not caring doesn't relate to stupidity.
It most certainly was not an insult. Sujecting that someone has a negitive atribute is a insult.
It can't be a tie. Literally, cannot. It only means you were wrong too. If I were to debate with someone when we have the same views, that would be a tie. Debating with someone on a topic where the 'truth' or 'answer' could never be found, that would be a tie.
This one? You are losing, you have already lost. You can only wish.
How can you not be losing if you were wrong about atheism? And the big bang that wasn't really a bang at all. Then the potato-carrot thing... Your childish behavior. You're wrong, you are the losing side. I don't see anything where I've been 'wrong'. Since you haven't proved anything as wrong. Something can't be seen as wrong before it's proved so.
If I were in your position I would've answered the question. I did answer the question, dumb one.
You are just as low as they are. As are you.
Showing that kind of impossibility is actually done by doing nothing, because it cannot be done. Wrong again. When you're supposed to show that a math problem is unequal, therefor impossible, you're able to prove that it's faulty.
If it cannot be done here it cannot be done anywhere That's like saying "I can't draw a perfect circle, so no one else can either"
No, you explain to me how that is logical. You seem to think if one from infinity is impossible they are all impossible. And so you consider everything as possible.
Getting long again... If you can't prove something wrong, it's a possibility. Are they all answers? No. I mean just because I can get up in many different ways it doesn't mean that I'm going to. You seem to have no sense of logic.
I'm just done. I shall not reply if you're to make another so called 'argument' being that I don't enjoy 'fighting' someone so far below me. This debate site in general is rather boring actually. I'll probably just quit this site. I saw a different site I like a lot more earlier. It has many more formalities and intellectuals. I think I still with that site for now.
Ok well if all the religions become 1. Cant you eliminate all the illogical ones and the ones that are blatantly made up. Your left with Islam. I'm serious. Every other religion has some idea that is contradicted by science. Christianities trinity contradicts time and space, and they say the world is flat etc. Hinduism gods also contradict time and space. Buddhism doesnt really have a god. I can go on. Now you actually have a 50:50. So it would be a good idea to look into Islam.
Ok well if all the religions become 1. Cant you eliminate all the illogical ones and the ones that are blatantly made up. No. This 'pie chart' shows the possibilities of the universe. No matter how unlikely, all ideas and ideas involving the creation of the universe by some sort of deity is an idea and belong on the chart. Even religious ideas that don't exist would belong here. Made up religions even. Islam may be more logical then most religions, but it would still be divided among trillions of other ideas, so it would still be a minority in comparison to atheism.
Ok if your doing it like that you cant have 2 sides. You have to have 100000000 parts of the pie chart. And each has difference in value based on its logicality. Because you cant take a religion claiming a human is god and weight it the same as a much more logical one. You cant just take all deity ideas and clump them on one side thats ignorant. Please read my other argument for continuation on why islam is more logical than atheism.
Yes, yes. But as it is atheism would always have the largest portion. Your argument is trying to make islam the highest probability. Well think about it more. What about all of the possibilities similar to the idea of islam. Say we had all of the same ideas of the islam people, except we added a couple more deities, that right there would half the chances of that being 'the one'. Atheism would get smaller from this since it's separate, it's not part of the fight 'which religion is right' since it isn't a religion.
The ONLY religion related to islam is Judaism. Christianity is different in the sense of god and everything else is much different. Judaism has very few adherents and its holy book has been chopped and screwed over the years. It is mostly a hereditory religion so its weightage drops. And now what makes more sense. God outside of space and time created the universe with space and time. Or a universe popping out of no where. Something coming from nothing, which contradicts science itself. And life spontaneously foriming from "chemicals". And this life just magically turning into creatures and then. These creatures get ingenuity and moral like humans. Does atheism really have the largest portion?
'Religion' doesn't matter. Any religion is just a idea, so if we just made up a idea very similar to islam, there you go, we have a religion very similar to islam.
This makes NO sense. If you make up a religion similar to Islam. You have something going against it. Its proven to be made up. There for its weightage dropped. To weight ALL ideas the same is pure ignorance, no offense. If you truly are comparing. You would see which is more reliable. And im not talking about probablities here. Im not talking about which is more rational. And this is between Atheism and Islam. Im just saying other religions should be knocked out due to their irrationalities. Islam has less logical fallacies than atheism. Please prove me wrong.
Most religions would be 'knocked off' BUT that doesn't get rid of the infinite other posabilities. Even if something is just 'made up' it doesn't make it untrue. All of our 'science' was just made up at one point, and then we worked though it, made our proofs, and now we see them as 'facts'. using that mindset you would beable to see how small Islam is in comparison to 'everything'.
Omg. Look at the debates name. Islam or Atheism. Not Islam compared to every religion ever made. Im just saying. Islam makes more sense than atheism. If you keep this idea independant from all the other religions because they are in fact independant to each other.
If I just compared the two I wouldn't be able to explain why Islam is such a illogical idea in comparison to Atheism. Although you obviously haven't been grasping what I've been talking about so I suppose it doesn't matter. Even if we did keep them independent it doesn't change anything about how they comparable, it just makes it less understandable and harder to argue.
That makes no sense at all. How is no gods more logical. Is it more logical that something came from nothing and the universe just popped out of no where and time and space were created. Is it more logical that space is randomly perfect for life and life spontaneously just came out of no where. Without anything causing. Is it more logical that primates just got a big brain and ingenuity and moral values through evolutions and became humans? Other animals cant even make a piece of paper. And we have created so much. I think its more logical for something to cause this. And if there is a substantial amount of proof pointing towards the idea, not proving, but pointing towards i would pick the more logical.
It's not more logical in that sense.. Think of a pie chart. One side being the idea of us not having any deities(atheism) and the other side being all of the religions out there. So 50:50 chance right? Now if we were to dived the 50% side for deities for each religion out there each religion would only have less then a percent of a chance to be the 'real' one. That being said, atheism has a higher probability of being what is 'real'. Although I must clarify that I'm a agnostic atheist, so I don't rule out the idea of these religions.
Ok well if all the relgions make 50%. Cant you eliminate all the illogical ones and the ones that are blatantly made up. Your left with Islam. I'm serious. Every other religion has some idea that is contradicted by science. Christianities trinity contradicts time and space, and they say the world is flat etc. Hinduism gods also contradict time and space. Buddhism doesnt really have a god. I can go on. Now you actually have a 50:50. So it would be a good idea to look into Islam. Now what you have to do is change this 50:50. There is no way there is an equal chance. One has to have the upper edge, how do you know? Well which has more logical a deity or no deity. A deity means something outside of space and time created the universe with space and time. Or a universe popping out of no where. Something coming from nothing, which contradicts science itself. And life spontaneously foriming from "chemicals". And this life just magically turning into creatures and then. These creatures get ingenuity and moral like humans. Id take the first option.
Something coming out of no where contradicts science it self? Do you not see how illogical the idea of something appearing out of nothing is? Yet here we are. The idea of a 'great deity' appearing out of no where, and then making more stuff out of no where seems even less 'logical' to me.
Perfect exactly what I wanted you to say. The universe was created. Thats a fact accepted by all scientists. Big bang supports this and if you dont support the big bang. Then I dont know how to argue with you. Now if the universe was created it had to come from something, also a fact. Now god wasnt created. The universe being created is proven. God being created is not proven its actually proven against. There has to be at least ONE thing that wasnt created. Because god isnt bound to the laws of universe therefore it can come from nothing and it has no time. Because creation relates to time. And the universe is bound by time so it is created, god isnt bound by time so it cant be created.
There has to be at least ONE thing that wasnt created. Because god isnt bound to the laws of universe therefore it can come from nothing and it has no time.
I can understand something not being bound by time or space, and many other things due to the research in the 10 dimensions, but something just 'being there' isn't logical, nor possible.
If something wasn't 'created' that means it was just there, something made out of nothing. therefor, still illogical.
Because creation relates to time. And the universe is bound by time so it is created, god isnt bound by time so it cant be created.
The universe isn't bound by time. I don't quite remember, but time is the 4th dimension, many things out rule it.
1. Created does have time bro. To create something means to start its begining of time. I dont know if i phrased that correctly but you get my point. God was just there. It sounds illogical to you because you are bound to space and time. Everything you compute in your brain MUST have a beginning(time) and form(space). God exists out of so it doesnt have.
2. Yes it is. The universe IS practically space and time. Everything related to space and time is inside the universe. The universe's definition is All existing matter and space considered as a whole. Therefor all the space. Space and time are always connected with the spacetime continuum. So if the universe is space than it is time as well.
1. Created does have time bro. the 5th dimension shows that there are many timelines, and in each timeline things could be different, in which proving that nothing specifically can be created at one particular time in the universe, not to mention how the 6th dimension also supports this idea.
It sounds illogical to you because you are bound to space and time. Everything you compute in your brain MUST have a beginning(time) and form(space).
That's untrue. I may live in a world with time and space, but it doesn't mean I can't comprehend further.
2. Yes it is. The universe IS practically space and time. The universe is much deeper then that. Although your deffinition is correct, although from how you're talking I suppose you don't quite comprehend how deep 'space and time as a whole' is.
1. Okay the fifth dimension hasnt been proven. So your argument makes no sense. And even if there are different timelines. God exists outside of ALL because he is completely incoherent from time.
Well you can kind of know whats happening outside. Like I am thinking there is something outside that isnt bound. But you CANNOT compute whats going on there its a fact.
2. Yes i do. They are together in the spacetime continuum and cannot be separated. Its simple. And spacetime and the universe are bound together. And the universe was created. With syllogism i conclude whatever created the universe was outside of spacetime.
How is no gods more logical. Is it more logical that something came from nothing and the universe just popped out of no where and time and space were created.
Contradiction right there. God supposedly created everything from nothing... you, being religious I assume, should've known that. The reality is that our universe came from a dense spot that simply expanded very quickly.
There is no time or space. There are all the particles, energies and stuff that affect each other ---> change that we perceive as "time" and from there also comes "space". It's not that "time and space" make our existence possible, it's the other way around, the stuff our universe is made of, including us, make "time and space" perceivable to us.
Is it more logical that space is randomly perfect for life and life spontaneously just came out of no where.
I take it you know nothing about science? Or extremely little?
Is it more logical that primates just got a big brain and ingenuity and moral values through evolutions and became humans?
Exactly.
Other animals cant even make a piece of paper.
So?
And we have created so much.
So?
I think its more logical for something to cause this.
Dead wrong.
And if there is a substantial amount of proof pointing towards the idea, not proving, but pointing towards i would pick the more logical.
So you would pick "no gods"? Then why did you dispute me?
1. I dont think that. Your argument makes no sense.
And thats no true at all. Heard of the spacetime continuum? look it up.
2. Of course i do! I know that the universe is perfect :
1. The Universe’s fine-tuning is either due to necessity, chance, or design
2. The Universe’s fine-tuning is not due to necessity or chance
3. Therefore, the Universe’s fine-tuning is due to design
Premise (1) is uncontroversial, unless my opponent brings forth an alternative theory. Premise (2) is substantiated because (a) reality and physics conforms around the fine-tuning being discussed, so physics could not have caused the fine-tuning, and (b) chance is an absurd hypothesis because of the infinitesimal scale the fundamentals of nature operate on. Thus the conclusion follows the Universe was designed.
Also life coming from chemicals, is NOT scientific. Its a bullshit theory with no evidence. Created by scientists who had no other explanation.
3. No its not..
4. Shows we are different?
5. Not really. Stuff doesnt happen by tself.
6. Nah i think the lack of explanation for no gods makes it completely illogical.
And yes it is true. Ever heard of thinking on your own without simply believing stuff you hear, no matter if they are true or not? Think about it if you can.
2. There is no such thing as perfect. Unless to you imperfection is perfect.
1. Basically chance.
2. Chance.
3. Dead wrong.
Life coming from chemicals is scientific. You are so ignorant I'm not even gonna waste my time providing you some actual refutation. Do your own studies and research, without bias and delusions, of course.
3. I'll just go with yes it is... since you said the opposite... I'll just take my chances on this one.
4. I'll go with yes? Yes. We definitely are different. Now when I think of it the answer is yes every time, I think.
5. Yes really. Stuff happens by itself. We wouldn't exist if it didn't.
6. The lack of explanation and evidence for gods makes gods illogical. How long has the stupid concept been around? Thousands of years, yet not a bit of evidence. And then you look at modern science and what it says - every story of creation created for religious purposes is all nonsense. And then the religious morons twist their stories of fantasy to make them seem "possible", just one problem with that... everything.
NO let me rectify, atheist is a lazy soul who do not want to understand the nature of the world. Some atheist try to back with science They believe in evolution, ex. I use to be a monkey,perhaps a pork my dna is so similar to their.. but note that atheist is the rejection of belief in any existence of deities
Hmm... now you made a totally different point of view. If atheism isn't science, atheism could be thinking that the universe was once made or barbie dolls that became unicorns which look like humans. That doesn't involve the concept of a god, does it? In that case a god would make more sense.
Science makes too many assertions and has too many logical fallacies. Islam has NO logical fallacies and some ideas can be thought to be speculations but they have nothing going against them. Therefor islam makes more sense.
science has proves and islam got no prove at all i mean i can't see allah, so why should i believe in it? their is no prove at all and that is why it makes no sense but science you can see and learn them in your daily life .
How is this even up for debate? Islam is RETARDED. Excuse my french but thats it. It has ZERO fact to back any of it up. None of it makes any sense scientifically, rationally, logically, ect. Atheism, the simple lack of belief in a god is FAR more rational because it doesnt make ANY assertions that cannot possibly be known. It is the DEFAULT position to the god question. It is far more reasonable to believe that there is no god outside of time and space pulling the strings and poofing things to existence, and that in fact, things just happened because they happened. Now many atheists take it further to where they rely on science to explain these things which is even MORE rational, seeing as science uses facts and a dependable system to observe and draw conclusions about the world around us in REALITY instead of guessing and asserting unsupported absurdities.
This question should not even be up for debate if were all intellegent people....obviously this is not the case.
This is stupidity. Lack of believe has no assertions? Surely it doesnt. But the idea of atheism as a whole is what im talking about. The belief that life was formed from chemicals, not an assertion ? Really? The universe came from no where? What the heck does that even mean. Its more logical something outside of time and space creating it makes WAY more sense than space and time just popping out of nowhere. Because the universe has a begining. If something has a begining its begining had to have been caused, please explain what caused the universe to exist.
Atheism- a lack of belief in a god or diety. Atheism does not equal science. You are saying it does. That atheism is what is asserting life began from chemicals. Nope. That is science who'd DOES make assertions. Or better, CONCLUSIONS, based on observation of conducted experiments.
Again, with the whole beginning of the universe you're on about. That isn't atheism that is making that assertion, it is science. And "the universe came from nothing" is a horribly ignorant summerization of the big bang theory (which im assuming you were referring to). Watch 3 part introduction on the big bang theory on YouTube to learn more about it please.
So yeah, you're getting atheism and science confused. Sure many atheists rely on science when they DO make a claim but that claim then branches from science and not from their lack of religion.
Science prompts atheists to become atheists. Why do christians become atheists? Because evolution makes more sense. Because they dont think the world is 6000 years old, etc etc. Its the root cause, so i argue with it connected. Im sorry i shouldve changed the title to Islam vs Atheism in a scientific point of view. I didnt know.
And also Islam supports the big bang theory. I saw it too, in fact the guy who made the video is Muslim, but anything that has a beginning of existence has a cause of existence.
So what do you believe in, tell me your point of view, so far I understood, you dont believe in any existence of deities,but it sounds like you where one of those people who use to say - the world is flat!-
so answer me how did you came up in the world?(if you take any example of scientific proofs, does it still not equal science?)
So how did the human being came into this beautiful world? Surprise me
So what do you believe in, tell me your point of view, so far I understood, you dont believe in any existence of deities,but it sounds like you where one of those people who use to say - the world is flat!-
Exactly. I don't believe IN anything. No deity, god, ect. I follow the philosophy of satanism and accept science for the explaination for everything.
I have no idea what you're getting at with the last part...
so answer me how did you came up in the world?(if you take any example of scientific proofs, does it still not equal science?)
Uhhh....I accept evolution and the big bang as of right now. Yes that equals science but has no relation to my lack of belief in a deity.
So how did the human being came into this beautiful world? Surprise me
The big bang. Evolution. As of now evolution is near fact and the big bang is highly supported so yeah. And the way you say beautiful world insinuates that you're on of those people who thinks just because the world is so pretty and everythings so colorful and intricate that it must be divinely inspired. Well I hate to break it to you but that doesn't mean anything. It doesnt have to be anything. It just is because it is. Because it's one in a billion trillion chance of being so. Also, I urge you to look at the world (at least in pertaining to humans) in a different perspective. War, disease, famine, drought, hunger, thirst, pain, sorrow, death. The world isn't as pretty as it seems.
Exactly. I don't believe IN anything. No deity, god, ect. I follow the philosophy of satanism and accept science for the explaination for everything.
But I thought Atheist dont use backups of science?As yourself told it before Atheism does not equal science
What is the philosophy of Satanism in few sentence?
Uhhh....I accept evolution and the big bang as of right now. Yes that equals science but has no relation to my lack of belief in a deity.
So you Believe in Science?Im really confused..
And the way you say beautiful world insinuates that you're on of those people who thinks just because the world is so pretty and everythings so colorful and intricate that it must be divinely inspired. Well I hate to break it to you but that doesn't mean anything. It doesnt have to be anything. It just is because it is. Because it's one in a billion trillion chance of being so.
I believe you talk about the multivers theory of Hawkins..
Let me tell you that the probability that one universe (ours) among all these other universe to make human life possible in it(our world) the probability of that is 10*10123 among 1. This is as if you would say that a bunch of monkeys wrote down the work of William Shakespeare...(so complex structure as it is) This clearly states that it is impossible, that this has not happen by coincidence.
But I think you just believe what you like to hear, and you just take scientific evidence,and if you dont like that same scientific evidence you deny and say I AM ATHEIST so I might believe in the theory of evolution, or the scientific Big bang, but it depends if I like it..
so, I urge you to look at the world (at least in pertaining to humans) in a different perspective. War, disease, famine, drought, hunger, thirst, pain, sorrow, death. The world isn't as pretty as it seems.
Human on this earth was always brutal,corrupt, lying,aggressive,competitive,since then we have famine ,drought, hunger, thirst, pain, sorrow.
If the Human kind would change to a modest,honest,non competitive,caring,loving,etc we would be able to do a radical revolution, no hunger anymore,no drought,etc
That change starts among us, in our community,family, and then we can spread it out
And of course we will die, but it is the way you die, and achieved,you life, to help others, because all you do for yourself you loose it, except what you do for the creator, and his human kind
But I thought Atheist dont use backups of science?As yourself told it before Atheism does not equal science
Many do, some don't. The point is, when an atheist does make a claim it is from their scientific knowledge and not just because theyre an atheist. If they do cone out and say "theres no god because I said so" than that's just absurd. Atheism doesn't equal science but they are often equated with eachother because with one comes the other in mist cases. With scientific knowledge comes a disbelief because the scientific support holds more weight and persuasion.
What is the philosophy of Satanism in few sentence?
To hold knowledge, self respect, and personal accountability above all else. To put ones needs and the needs of their closest associates above those of others.
So you Believe in Science?Im really confused.
Not believe in it, I accept it. Its not a belief system...just facts and evidence.
I believe you talk about the multivers theory of Hawkins..
Let me tell you that the probability that one universe (ours) among all these other universe to make human life possible in it(our world) the probability of that is 1010123 among 1. This is as if you would say that a bunch of monkeys wrote down the work of William Shakespeare...(so complex structure as it is) This clearly states that it is impossible, that this has not happen by coincidence.
And because it's such a big number it's so radical that its impossible? The monkeys and Shakespeare part I have no idea WTF you're talking about...the big bang, then chance over time and our galaxy and world came to be.
But I think you just believe what you like to hear, and you just take scientific evidence,and if you dont like that same scientific evidence you deny and say I AM ATHEIST so I might believe in the theory of evolution, or the scientific Big bang, but it depends if I like it..*
Yeah, I like to hear educated supported conclusions made by brilliant minds who conducted experiments. It's music to my ears. I prefer that over some book and doctrine of rules written by uneducated bronze age primitives. The bible is so wrong in countless ways. I'll take modern science over fairytales. Sorry. I also wanna add that I don't just see a theory and say I believe it, I learn about and what it says. How it works. And what evidence is behind it to back it up. As for the I AM ATHEIST...1) what am I a cave man? 2) I have no idea what ur trying to say. I assume it's cuz you think atheists are full of themselves...
Sooo....you know it's ugly and horrible...but it's beautiful and MUST be divinely inspired? I'm confused...
And the. Blah blah blah olive branch love thy neighbor yada yada. That will never happen. The world is spiraling downwards. If their is a god, he left us to our own devices 2000 years ago. Buckle down on yourself and your problems and not everyone elses. Thats why Americas down the shitter. Cuz we just have to help everybody else and stick our nose in other countless shit.
Basically the main reason why I'm an atheist is that all deities I have been presented have failed to meet their burden of proof. They're all absurd and have mountains of evidence against them.
With scientific knowledge comes a disbelief because the scientific support holds more weight and persuasion.
Since when are they disbelieving, if they need persuasion? It means rather it would be other causes, to intensify his belief, or doubt, but not disbelief.They choose too disbelief, if it doesn't make sense, or if it goes beyond the logical point, or scientific evidence.
To hold knowledge, self respect, and personal accountability above all else. To put ones needs and the needs of their closest associates above those of others.
But who is satan then?Is he not a divinity?
And because it's such a big number it's so radical that its impossible?
Yes it is, otherwise, you should just try to fly, or you should wait to metamorphose to a bird
This is Roger Penrose comment on these numbers
This now tells how precise the Creator’s aim must have been, namely to an accuracy of one part in 1010123.
This is an extraordinary figure.
One could not possibly even write the number down in full in the ordinary denary notation: it would be 1 followed by 10123 successive 0′s.
Even if we were to write a 0 on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe – and we could throw in all the other particles for good measure – we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed.1
The monkeys and Shakespeare part I have no idea WTF you're talking abou
I was telling you that, if someone believes in your believe, that the world came by coincident , he should believe as well that a bunch of monkeys wrote down the work of Shakespeare alone! With the punctuations! Can you believe in that?
. I prefer that over some book and doctrine of rules written by uneducated bronze age primitives.
I just remind you many of these book have predicted some numerous extraordinary scientific evidence, which could only be seen by our modern technology.So therefore I refute your statement!
The bible is so wrong in countless ways.
So keep on reading, there is not only the bible. If you get fired tomorrow, you dont just stay at home, but you keep searching, because you know there is a work outside!
If their is a god, he left us to our own devices 2000 years ago
What is then the death,? What is time? Time has been created, but that god is beyond time. So after dead, we are beyond time..No wonder that Elvis couldn't come back and warn us about God lol
Buckle down on yourself and your problems and not everyone elses.
Well I try to be good and to live in a modest way, but if i see something wrong I try to explain it, thats been human. Because otherwise this will just increase difficulties in the world, and I wouldn't mind if someone tells me what I'm doing wrong, this will just help me to improve(of course in a polite manner)
. Thats why Americas down the shitter. Cuz we just have to help everybody else and stick our nose in other countless shit.
America is a rogue state, a state which do not regard themself bound by international norms, we have many historical evidence for that, till today its happening!
Basically the main reason why I'm an atheist is that all deities I have been presented have failed to meet their burden of proof. They're all absurd and have mountains of evidence against them.
Keep on looking, search and read, this will help you aswell to understand their non material culture. And I hope for you that you find the truth.
Since when are they disbelieving, if they need persuasion? It means rather it would be other causes, to intensify his belief, or doubt, but not disbelief.They choose too disbelief, if it doesn't make sense, or if it goes beyond the logical point, or scientific evidence
You should ALWAYS need persuasion! An intellegent, rational thinking person when presented with a claim should instantly be a skeptic of it and say "prove it". That is the problem with religion. Claims were made thousands of years ago and the people of that age were unintellegent farmers, merchants, ect and bought it without question. In modern day this should NEVER be the case. Were smarter now. The only reason religion is still alive in ANY way is brainwashing people at a young age before they reach the age of rational thinking. If you can get to a kid and indoctrinate them at a young age before they start asking questions you have a much higher chance of keeping them in it because theyve been trained to believe it in the face of adversity to it. If a religion tried to start in this age people would laugh at it. NOBODY would buy it. The only sucess it would have would be on brainwashing kids or the very stupid.
But who is satan then?Is he not a divinity?
Good question. I shouldve clairified it but you asked for a short synopsis. Yes and no. Because you can be a theistic satanist and an atheistic one. Both follow generally the same things as i discribed but theists believe that Satan exists as a deity and that it is his wish for us to follow these things and atheistics use him as a symbol to represent these things.
Yes it is, otherwise, you should just try to fly, or you should wait to metamorphose to a bird
This is Roger Penrose comment on these numbers
But those thing will never happen for obvious reasons. They are physically impossible. With the creation of our world it is left to chance. As slim as a chance it may seem to be it is still a chance and by no means impossible.
We are not the only lifebearing planet in the universe by ANY means. I bet theres hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of others. Hell, there may be some other earth somewhere where life developed exactly like ours and theres humans.
Now another thing, if a planet did have a one in 100000000 chance of coming to exist and it DID by chance happen, dont you think the inhabitants of that planet would see that number and think "there's NO way this just happened by chance".?
I was telling you that, if someone believes in your believe, that the world came by coincident , he should believe as well that a bunch of monkeys wrote down the work of Shakespeare alone! With the punctuations! Can you believe in that?
But we KNOW 100% fact that Shakespeare was not written by monkeys. We do NOT know by any means that we were or were not created by chance. And CERTAINLY not that some deity outside of time and space poofed it to be.
I just remind you many of these book have predicted some numerous extraordinary scientific evidence, which could only be seen by our modern technology.So therefore I refute your statement!
Proof and examples please. The only science i see in that book says the sun revolves around the earth, the earth is flat, the earth is less than 10000 years old, water can be magically transmorphed into wine, blind people can suddenly see again, the world was somehow entirely flooded, and men were created from a handfull of dirt and women from a single rib bone. Yeah, some great science there.
Also might i add that any prophecies that have "came true" in the bible are absurd. Storybook characters "fullfill" prophecies all the time. That is only so because the author wrote them in fullfilled in the next damn chapter! Its a storybook! Made up! Unsupported, evidenceless, nothing! It is historically inaccurate, a scientific MESS, and riddled with inconsistancies, errors, and contradictions. If you can really take this work written 2000 years ago as fact, then you are just as stupid as the kid at the end of a game of telephone with a million players believing that what he hears is the exact original phrase.
So keep on reading, there is not only the bible. If you get fired tomorrow, you dont just stay at home, but you keep searching, because you know there is a work outside!
I have read the entire OT and NT and i dont believe a word of it. Why should i read the outside works? You know what i WOULD like to read? The reports of actual history from a historian who lived at the supposed time of jesus. Id love to read a factual account of his existance. But these texts do not exist. The historians existed...but they didnt write about the most incredible miracles and life in the history of the world? hmm... but some average joe did...
Also thats a great point. The books in the bible are certainly not the only ones that were written, yet theyre the ones deemed important enough to put in a collection that must be read by all followers. Why? Well when the catholic church got together they decided on the books that depicted jesus just how they wanted. As a deity, and not a man. The other ones didnt fit their agenda so they left them out. Well if it's all the divinely inspired word of god, how could they possibly be left out? No, you dont think its because the religion was created for nothing but indoctrination and control do you? How crazy....
After you die your brain dies and your conscousness ceases to exist. It is an illusion that we have "souls". We become like how we were before being born. Ceasing to exist. We dont leave time and if we do we are not conscious of it at all. Gone. Poof. Done. Over. And its even LESS likely that we are somehow poofed out of time in full awareness to the realm of a magical space dude who controls everything to live in happiness forever having tea and cookies with elvis and everyone else. Grow up. There is NO evidence for any of religions claims that they know what happens when we go.
Athiesm is not believing in a creator. It doesnt mean you believe in science. So, you can believe the universe was here all along for no reason then magical unicorns appeared everywhere and gave birth to humans. Now that would make less sense than Islam.
So, you can believe the universe was here all along for no reason then magical unicorns appeared everywhere and gave birth to humans.
Strictly speaking, that would be creationism, and theism as well; not all deities need be omnipotent or omniscient or even close to it; 'magical unicorns' are often described as having capabilities on part with major deities in some religions, and minor deities in others, and as soon as you're attributing the existence of mankind to them, you're making a god out of them- if not in so many words.
I'm not actually of the opinion atheism is particularly rational. It's impossible to prove or disprove the statement "god exists," so assuming the affirmative or negative of this statement is an inherently irrational thing to do. So it seems the best position you could possibly hold as rational is agnosticism.
However, in this debate I have been asked to compare the rational of Islam to that of atheism, and in that particular instance I think atheism makes far more sense than Islam does. Both positions assume something they can't prove (god does/doesn't exist), but atheism stops there. Islam keeps going and builds up loads of theological, mythological, and oftentimes highly immoral bullshit on top of that initial assumption. So to be a Muslim you don't just have to take one thing on faith (like you do with atheism), you have to take many things on faith, which I think makes atheism the more rational of the two.
Please give me examples of "theological, mythological, and oftentimes highly immoral bullshit" and atheism is wayyy more irrational. Its so unexplained. Islam makes more sense. And the existence of God makes more sense, than stuff just happening on its own.
There isn't really any explaining for "atheism" to do. It's a lack of belief in gods, which in my case is because of lack of evidence for God's existence.
How does the existence of God make more sense, than things popping into existence by themselves?
I mean, God already pops things into existence by thought alone. Why not save a step and say the universe popped into existence?
And how do you explain god's existence in the first place? He just existed for eternity, forever? What evidence do you have for any of these assertions?
It depends on your definition of sense. To me, and all other atheists, deciding that the nature of the universe and of living things is better to observe than to read about in ridiculously vague, improbable and often impossible accounts held within books that also instruct us on how to live our lives.
In a simple toss-up between being free to observe and think, or being given definite and specific limitations and rules, how many people would choose the later? Assuming that they are given the choice, rather than being told as children that "This is so, never ever dare question it."