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.
Religious books deal with 2 matters : morals, and answers to metaphysical questions. When it comes to the Bible, morality has a higher standard, since Jesus asks us to beware from the inside (eg. Coveting = adultery, hate = murder, etc) .about the Truth, the whole existence of Christianity, and the base of the answers Christianity gives, are in Christ, the second person of the Holy trinity who became a man and died for our sins. So believing in Him is the sine qua non condition.
That said, we must remember a commandment of Christ : don't judge lest you be judged, And also remember that only God knows the secrets of each soul.
You can be the nicest person in the world helping people out you name it but until you accept Jesus Christ as your savior you are going to go to Hell there isn't no way around it if you are a Christian you have you say the truth as you walk the walk and talk the talk. We are not God what God sees is His eyes is a way different good then what we think it is. God's standard for some things are not the same at all of what we think we know on things.
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
I think it depends. If you are given proof and reject them like a total idiot then you will probably go to hell. If you are looking for an answer but still are not convinced then you won't. However we don't know yet, therefore, if you have not manged to find proof and have not found the logic God is based on, you hopefully won't go to hell. There is a difference between scientific thought and rational/logical thought, Theists that are not stupid and ignorant tend to use logical thinking and a bit of science. Basically think and do your best to find God. That is all I have to say. I might be wrong. Just think and be honest and do not deny proof.
There are many Atheists who found God by simply thinking. Like my Mum, when someone dear to her died, she said to herself "that's it? You just live and die? Life must be so pointless. Those were one of many baby steps to her conversion, one of many.
I have had that same experience, where I was thinking quite consciously at the time about..."what then?" like, we live this life, and then what. nothing?? It made me feel so incredibly pointless, empty, like someone was telling me that I'm like a figment of my imagination, it was the hardest thought I'v ever had! That is when i KNEW there HAD to be something beyond this life. HAS to be. And besides, all you really need to believe in are spirits, and everyone knows they exist, I'v known people personally who have encountered them, so that really says it all. So I guess if there IS life after death in some form, it could well mean we are here for a reason, a purpose, and so there may just well be a God behind it all.
Why is that incentive for giving in to an idiotic ideology? Instead of reading great philosophers like Ayn Rand who hold reasonable and defendable arguments for such things, your mother turned to fairy tales?
What else is life if not pointless if there's nothing to look forward to afterwards? And what are you, by the way, heartless? He was using his mother as an example - mature people don't attack someone else's mother.
For that matter, logic is a fairytale. Where's your physical proof?
"What else is life if not pointless if there's nothing to look forward to afterwards?"
What a weak minded depraved statement. Are you entitled to anything beyond? Are you a dog living for a treat? Men like you are the problem with society, relying on mysticism to justify the most irrational positions.
"And what are you, by the way, heartless? He was using his mother as an example - mature people don't attack someone else's mother."
What a cowardly statement. The action of unprotected intercourse does not entitle one to anything, her action was still idiotic.
"For that matter, logic is a fairytale. Where's your physical proof?"
I am reminded of a character from Atlas Shrugged who held the position you are advocating. What intellectual garbage. If you insist on proof:
1. I think, therefor I am.
2. My thinking is the faculty that processes what I perceive with my senses.
3. I can think about what I perceive through my senses, further proving the existence of my senses.
4. Since what I think is the result of what I learn through my senses, reality is the medium of all information.
5. I define objects by their properties(axiom of identity)
6. Since I cannot verify the existence of thing outside my senses, I cannot concede to an unjustified assertion without conceding to every unjustified assertion.
7. The status quo is set through 1-6.
8. Faith doesn't invalidate the status quo as it calls for acceptance of unverifiable claims.
This is the formula by which I determine it resonable to deny the existence of matters like heaven and god.
Weak-minded and depraved? What about your theory that we just cease to exist. That's depraved. Oh, and FYI, I'm not a man.
"What a cowardly statement. The action of unprotected intercourse does not entitle anyone to anything, her action was still idiotic."
Cowardly is attacking someone's mother based on her beliefs. No wonder so many people hate atheists, there's people like you representing them. It took me a moment to figure out what you meant with your second sentence since it was so unnecessarily flamboyantly worded, that I had to wonder if you weren't just attempting to show off your impeccable pedantry, you teacher's pet you! ;) Haha, I digress... Is it safe to assume you wouldn't want someone judging your mother for making idiotic choices?
So you believe in thought processes? Which... Can't... Be seen. Ohhhhkay. That makes no sense.
"What about your theory that we just cease to exist."
I will live on in the memories of those whose lives I have influenced and minds I have touched. That is enough for me, which is fitting considering I know there to be nothing beyond it.
"Cowardly is attacking someone's mother based on her beliefs"
How redundant. Instead of addressing my contention on its merits you just rehash your bullshit belief that intercourse entitles anyone anything.
"No wonder so many people hate atheists, there's people like you representing them. It took me a moment to figure out what you meant with your second sentence since it was so unnecessarily flamboyantly worded"
Insults are all fine and dandy, but try to Put an ounce of argument in them. Flamboyant? Marvelous.
" Is it safe to assume you wouldn't want someone judging your mother for making idiotic choices?"
I wouldn't give a damn, my mother is responsible for her decisions. Her importance to me doesn't change the pure idiocy of some of her actions from the past, and being intellectually cowardly does nobody any good. I hold honesty as a virtue, perhaps not a neccesary one but one nonetheless.
"So you believe in thought processes? Which... Can't... Be seen. Ohhhhkay. That makes no sense."
This is it? This is your contention to my formula? Way to overachieve. Sight is not the only means of obervation, and thought is the faculty by which all observation is processed. Again, stop this lunatic tendency to put "belief" in the matter. There was not an ounce of it in my response.
1. Can you prove memories exist? You can't see them. So by your "logic," you cease to exist after death.
2. Your statement had no merit, pretentious ass. It was insulting and, again, cowardly. He said nothing wrong, nothing you could argue with, so you attacked his mother. Tsk tsk, that's childish. And just say SEX, it saves both our precious time.
3. That wasn't an insult, it was an observation. You expect Christians to respect your views and arguments when you're anything but respectful. You're a hypocrite.
4. Honesty's great. Blatant, baseless attacks are not.
5. Right. Thought. With your mind, which is, once again, intangible. Ayn Rand was a hack and your argument, excuse me, her argument is also baseless.
"1. Can you prove memories exist? You can't see them. So by your "logic," you cease to exist after death."
Thanks to the immortal words of Descartes, thought is an axiom. It is the faculty of perception, which we all posses to some degree. You were able to respond to my argument, therefor you perceived it. Thought necessitates memory, as I can think about the same perceived instance more then the exact time it occurred.
"Your statement had no merit, pretentious ass. It was insulting and, again, cowardly. "
You insult the individual virtue of the mother by insinuating she is above criticism just for committing an act of passion.
"attacked his mother. Tsk tsk, that's childish. And just say SEX, it saves both our precious time."
That wouldn't be flamboyant enough.
"You expect Christians to respect your views and arguments when you're anything but respectful. You're a hypocrite."
I don't demand respect, I cannot expect it from those lacking critical thought on the issue. I do not respect idiocy born from mysticism, nor will I pretend that it holds any merit. As I said, I hold honesty as a virtue.
"Honesty's great. Blatant, baseless attacks are not."
Baseless? My dear deluded opponent.
". With your mind, which is, once again, intangible"
The processes of the mind are intangible? How long of you spent in a neuro science laboratory? I assure you the process of perception in not a whimsical position like theism is.
"Ayn Rand was a hack "
Hack? Truly? Your amusing. And considering the personal state of the individual would have no impact on the validity of her philosophy, the statement really doesn't affect the debate.
You're problem is you're just another book worm hungry for information because you haven't been able to figure out ON YOUR OWN whats actually in your heart, or what exists or what doesn't, and are too afraid to even go there. I am starting to see a pattern amoungst the for's and the againsts... the ones who say there is a God and life after death go with their hearts, the ones that believe there isn't a god or life after death only think with "logic" and whats in their brain. Unfortunately, with that type of existence it would be quite hard to tell right from wrong! How do you do it actually? Pick up a book and hope to find the answer there? I'm sure! What a way to live life! Books are great for some reasons but not to tell you whats in your heart! And thats the ONLY thing that will answer spiritual. Your case is over.
Thankyou! I'll agree on that one! And I'm a 'she' for the record. :-) I hope you liked my comeback shortly posted right after yours! I guess the people debating against there being a God or life after death have very slim pickings, it must be really hard to muster up actual proof that God DOESN'T exist, or that life after death doesn't exist. I mean come on! You would have had to have your head buried in the sand your whole life to REALLY believe that. It would be like trying to prove your heart has no feelings, and your brain doesn't control what you feel inside, and nothing at all is connected.
If all you've got are insults, then this isn't much of a debate, and I wouldn't waste my time reading Ayn rand if thats what they teach! Obviously you're a narrow minded person with SOME kind of point to make with absolutely NO BACK UP! What was it again? Do tell!
It seems to me like you closed your eyes, opened them with my paragraph infront of you and the first thing you noticed was the last! haha!
Why don't you make up your OWN mind about things, and actually use YOUR BRAIN to work things out about life than turning to books with someone ELSES opinion to enlighten you! Sad.
Such emotional leaps of thinking are common, but to position such things as rational is absurd and merely constitute a defense mechanism for such irrational jumps.
If you are given proof and reject them like a total idiot then you will probably go to hell.
No one is an idiot for their beliefs first of all.
Second of all, WHAT proof? There is no proof for a God.
have not found the logic God is based on, you hopefully won't go to hell.
God is based on logic? I've yet to see this.
Hopefully you won't go to hell? According to religions that's a pretty big deal. Yet there's no sure way one way or the other?
do not deny proof.
Once again, what proof? And what if you are raised completely excluded from religion?
There are many Atheists who found God by simply thinking. Like my Mum, when someone dear to her died, she said to herself "that's it? You just live and die? Life must be so pointless. Those were one of many baby steps to her conversion, one of many.
Yes. Nothing happens when you die. That's it.
I personally find people who need to believe something are weak and need that comfort.
"I personally find people who need to believe something are weak and need that comfort." My mother became a believer long after his death that proves you wrong.
about the fact she believed because she wanted to feel good and that she believed because she liked the idea that she will meet her brother again. That is where the falsehood lies. The rest of the response is coming.
There is actually PLENTY of proof that there is a God. If you speak to anyone who's a die hard Christian and have read hundreds of books about miracles that have happened due to Saints, and may even had a miracle happen to you by a prayer to Jesus, then you might find that is proof enough. The bible ITSELF is "meant" to be proof!! It's just that people tend to doubt it, because they have never personally bumped into God in a physical form. It's funny though that when you read books written by some Author you have never met, how is it that you believe they exist? In other words, just because you didn't get to meet the lord himself, doesn't mean he didn't exist, or doesn't exist. Again, it's a matter of being a more spiritual person, and when you take the time to think about your own life as it stands, and picture it becoming nothing but dust when you pass away, then the pain you will feel by that thought will soon sort you out. :-)
There's no actual proof. There's personal experiences and those aren't proof.
I don't need to meet God to believe in God, there are other ways to prove things to a non-believer.
I'm not scared of the nothingness I expect comes with death. It's nothing, I won't feel anything or think anything, so why should I be scared of it? I actually find it more pleasing. The idea of no end is more frightening to me personally.
Personal experiences aren't proof? Well if they are not proof, then what other kind of proof do you expect? I don't know, I guess it's just a matter of how someone chooses to live. If you're the type of person that will not or can not look inside your heart to find an answer, and all you go by is what is presented infront of you, and you're happy living that way, well thats your choice, generally speaking. The people that talk about God are not seeing things from a physical stand point alone, they are able to look inside their hearts, because there is a whole other story there and thats where the real truth is! If you refuse to look inside your heart to find the truth it may just be that you prefer not to know. I think simply there is more to life than what you see infront of you in a physical form. But you need to be in connection with yourself, spiritually, to be able to understand that. No point in arguing with someone who has never practised that and who has chosen to go by only what they see infront of them. It's going off the topic anyway, the question was, do you still go to heaven even if you don't believe in God, but you have been good all your life? I think only a priest can answer that one! I personally don't know if theres such thing as heaven and hell, but after thinking about it, why should it make any difference and why would we be divided after we die when we are all together here? I know one thing though, theres alot of burden and anguish that we carry around INSIDE OUR HEARTS when we have done something bad, or even when we have mistreated ourselves for that matter, and it always brings about misery, bad luck, turmoil, into THIS life right here, so why do it? These are things that burden SOULS, not our legs, our hair or faces. When you're feeling things like that, why are you feeling that way? Is it purely physical? or would you say it goes deeper than that? Is it in your heart ? Your soul.? Have a think about that one! I think that is proof enough to at least realise that we go well beyond the physical in this life. The things we do lead to the way we feel INSIDE, and whatever we are feeling inside brings about certain circumstances to our lives, so how does that work and why is that? Why do we have a brain? Why bother using it for anything other than walking eating and talking? Still think theres more to life than the bare basics.
And honestly, only someone who hasn't read much about anything or thought much about anything in life could believe that there is nothing else but the physical, unless it was a very conscience decision made a long time ago to be that way. So, the reason why we choose to behave nicely, is so that we don't burden our hearts or souls, to live a happy and content life, here. Whether that takes you to heaven or not after you die is not that important, but at least you would be making your life HERE a whole lot better. If you choose to ignore this simple fact, then you're choosing to live a life of burden, hell right here on earth, in which case, why would it be any different for you after you die? Forget God, you have already set your path by living a certain way here. If your soul lives after you die and it's remained the same as here on earth, then guess how happy you will be later? You won't be, just like you weren't right here. I say do it for yourself whether you believe theres a God or not, or whether theres life or not after death, or whether theres a heaven or hell. Just live RIGHT... here.
I believe there is a creator, I just don't think that creator has any role in our life.
I don't believe in souls, though I do agree with being morally good, by your society's standards, for your current life's benefit. Though not for the soul. For the simple fact it's easier to live if you follow a good moral life.
And I personally don't believe in heaven or hell either. It's just a debate topic to me.
You do remember I said "If" right? and according to that, the people that tortured prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) are going to hell if they saw his miracles and continued to not believe and torture the prophet's believers. Why did they not believe? Because they refused to believe that they are equal and they need to give to the poor and that they need to stop burying girls and more stupid self-centered reasons . There can be proof-I converted because of the amazing accuracy and detail of embryology in the qua'an when the quI personally find people who need to believe something are weak and need that comfort.a'an was revealed 1400 years ago.
You can look up the verses your self look at this website. http://www.islam101.com/science/embryo.html This is one reason I converted. Fact: One of the professors of embryology in Canada read this and then converted.
Personally, I think your need to have a logical explanation in everything before you'll believe in something makes you shallow. And if you'd like to see how your argument of logic is easily defeated when attempting to disprove the existence of God, you can click here. I'm sure you'll find it quite interesting.
It is self refuting to say: "there is no absolute truth", and then try to claim that the statement, in and of itself, represents absolute truth. Only propositional statements can be ascribed with truth-values, the statement: "there are no absolute truths, is an abolsute truth", is correct syntactically, but is not absolute in reality.
All religions try to sell relative truth as absolute truth, us humans are not absolute, therefore nothing we prove will be absolute.
The whole point of the website was to show those who depend on logic for everything that logic doesn't answer everything either. Everyone has faith in something - when you go to sit on a chair, you have faith it will support you.
"The whole point of the website was to show those who depend on logic for everything that logic doesn't answer everything either."
I would never try to claim logic answers everything, nothing does, logic isn't all or nothing (i.e. perfect or useless), I hate any such unequivocal position.
"Everyone has faith in something - when you go to sit on a chair, you have faith it will support you."
Yes, but in no way does beleiving in a theistic God follow logically on from that.
Holding one illogical view doesn't make an otherwise logical person illogical. The inverse of this is true as well. Twain holding such an unjustified view doesn't invalidate his entire intelligence.
How about this? Don't attempt to disprove anything to me. I don't need your approval or your disapproval to believe in whatever I so choose. Why don't you think about it this way: better to be safe than sorry. Wouldn't you much rather believe in something, and it turn out not to be true in the end, rather than not believe in something, and it turn out to be true but by then it's too late because you'd be spending an eternity in fiery torment. But hey, it's your life.
It's been a long time since I engaged properly in an athiest vs. theist debate on this site, they get boring when you realise the theist will never conceed, and you're simply expending mental energy on nothing, but what the hell, you seem like you can hold your own.
"Wouldn't you much rather believe in something, and it turn out not to be true in the end, rather than not believe in something, and it turn out to be true but by then it's too late because you'd be spending an eternity in fiery torment. But hey, it's your life."
This is essentially a form of Pascals wager, i.e.
The philosophy uses the following logic (excerpts from Pensées, part III, note 233):
1. "God is, or He is not"
2. A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.
3. According to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.
4. You must wager. (It's not optional.)
5. Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.
6. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.
This justification for theistic belief is exceptionally weak, I'm going to list the logical shortfall's of the argument that are most convincing to me (they are by no means the only problems with the argument):
1. There are multiple Gods, presenting only two choices represents a false dichotomy, based on this; athiesm is more logical when considering the countless God's represented by the countless different religions who consider it irreconcilable to worship another God.
2. You are making a life defining choice, and thus making serious sacrifices, these can be summed up as having a massive impact on your behaviour and your thought, most religions are fairly restrictive (some more than others).
3. Any omniscient God (which is a logical prerequisite for most thiestic religions) would sense your insincerity if you did not truly beleive, but were merely going along in order to escape hellfire.
If you want to sound more convincing I'd run with irreducible complexity and/or the anthropic principle.
I wasn't justifying my reason for believing. My reasons for following God are between He and I. I was simply trying to understand an atheist's line of thinking. An atheist's main argument is about logic, apparently - "God doesn't exist because it isn't logical," "God doesn't exist because He can't be seen." This in itself doesn't make sense because logical person would continue to argue against something if it doesn't even exist?
"This in itself doesn't make sense because logical person would continue to argue against something if it doesn't even exist?"
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at, could you rephrase that?
You seem to think logic and God are equivalent, yes? Because neither of them can be seen, both only exist in the minds of men, yes?
Assuming this is the case:
- Logic is non-physical, but its laws do not only exist as non-physical thoughts.
- Logic is conceptual, its laws are non-physical concepts, and concepts do not need to be thought up in the mind of a concept-creator in order to exist, i.e. the laws of science and logic do not allow for something to be both itself and not itself simultaneously
E.g. My car is not both outside my house and not outside my house, I am not both sitting in this chair and not sitting in this chair, get it?
The laws of logic are simply the result (or necessity) of the material universe.
No, I don't think there is an equivalent between God and logic. I was attempting to use logic to explain His existence which, obviously, failed. He cannot be explained using logical arguments - however, he also cannot be disproven by logic.
I understand what you're saying about the laws of logic. However, logic itself cannot prove or disprove everything. You need to make a hypothesis to build on, and to assume God doesn't exist in order to attempt to disprove His is just that - an assumption.
"He cannot be explained using logical arguments -"
Actually some the strongest arguments (IMHO) for the existence of God are logical, the ontological argument (or argument from pure logic) is quite compelling, and the anthropic principle, which is essentially the basis for the poster of the babies in the womb, is also another strong argument for theism. They are strong because they cannot be refuted, the only problem is they cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt either, and thus, since they assert something without evidence, it can be dismissed without evidence (ala Hitchens). It is still more logical to beleive in the materialistic conception of the universe because they are essentially just appeals to ignorance, but they suffer no other demonstrably fallacious flaws.
"to assume God doesn't exist in order to attemp"
I don't assume God doesn't exist, I'm not an gnostic atheist, that would be ridiculous.
I've also always found the argument from logic pretty compelling, I mean, its main flaw is that pure materialism offers a more reasonable solution to the existence of logic than supernatural claims, but like the anthropic principle, I can see how it might be seductive to person whose mind is already inclined towards theism.
We're not talking about the Flying Spaghetti Monster. We're talking about God. And I'm sure the opposite of the dominion of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not hell, thus not believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster has no consequences.
Ignoring what you are saying is "worship this god because he's meaner" and I'd not ever bow to such a being even should I believe in their existence...
I've just heard the voice of the almighty Flying Spaghetti Monster, and he says if you don't convert you are to be gnawed by gerbils for a thousand years... it's only cute for about a week, than really starts to hurt.
1. I didn't put words in your mouth. Your premise is if you don't believe in your god you go to hell so better safe than sorry. This simply means one should believe in your god, because your god is meaner than other gods. That's an accurate restatement of your point, not words in your mouth.
2. Believers bow to their god. That is the basis of your religion. Whether you are forced to bow to your god or do so willingly is inconsequential, you are still bowing to someone.
3. That you feel I'm condescending is inconsequential to the argument. I've not stated I am superior within this argument, only presented my viewpoint. That you perceive this is condescending says more about your pre-existing idea of non-believers than this specific thread of replies.
1.) I never said God was mean- if He was, He'd vanquish non-believers to Hell. People go to Hell, but that's not His doing, it's theirs for making the wrong choices.
2.) Just like you bow to, say, science?
3.) I have no "pre-existing ideas." I have friends who are atheist and agnostic, Wiccan and pagan, and we get along splendidly because we have respect for each other and understanding. We all know what the other believes in and respect that choice, we don't criticize it. I'm all about respecting what you believe in as long as you don't bash my beliefs and try to convince me otherwise. It goes both ways.
1. Stockholm syndrome. You'd be a horrible witness to a hostage situation.
2. Science isn't an entity. When given evidence I tend toward belief in any given theory. And being a healthy individual, I do not cling to it when it becomes counter-intuitive and against counter evidence. Theastic belief does not allow for this.
3. This is not true at all. You believe that one will go to hell if they do not believe your religion. So then by your own admission you either A) don't care if other living beings are damned to eternal suffering, or B) don't really believe they will be damned to eternal suffering.
One or the other must inherently be true.
don't bash my beliefs and try to convince me otherwise. It goes both ways.
Pointing out the inconsistancy of your belief system is no more or less bashing than when you question the belief system of another.
If it is bashing, than you are currently bashing each and every religion you do not believe in. If you are not bashing religions you do not believe in, than neither am I because it is the same situation.
Each time you insist on your correctness, you are by definition insisting another is incorrect. It is not different than what I am doing to you now except in that while you are trying to convince others of your dogma, I'm not convincing anyone of anything, only questioning your own beliefs.
1. Again, your Stockholm Syndrome crap is misused. We choose to believe in God, He doesn't force us to. Yet again, free-will.
2. Science, logic, blah blah blah. Tell me, can you tangibly interact with any of those things? The laws of logic are immaterial, someone somewhere invented that. Can you see it, hear it, touch it? Don't think so.
3.) It is very true. People of different faiths can be friends regardless of beliefs. They know I believe non-believers go to hell, just like they think I'll die and cease to exist, or I'll die and be re-incarnated into a random fetus or an animal. But yes, I very much hold true to my beliefs, as they do to theirs. Hmm, it would seem such friendship would defy your logic, huh?
As I recall, this debate was for Christians "and anyone who thinks they've got an answer." We were being asked for our point of view, and we have answered. We weren't bashing anyone else's beliefs, we were telling you our own. I've simply been trying to reiterate the fact that I believe in God. If that sounds superior to you, than I apologize, but I honestly think you've gotten the wrong impression of me.
Really it depends on the category of the Gods are they many Gods, Lower class Gods, one God it depends on the type first, then you can disprove Gods within that type.
So you don't think people are idiots based on their beliefs, but they're weak? Wow, okay, that's even better. Doesn't that make you just as judgmental?
I actually didn't mean the people were weak. Simply that they needed something as a comfort and that itself was a weak characteristic. That doesn't speak for the person as a whole.
And I never claimed that I wasn't judgmental. EVERYONE is.
But not everyone needs it. I can't speak for them all, but many Christians believe in God because they choose to. It is a comfort but it's also a personal relationship with God. :)
Well you can follow the Bible standards to living and accecpt God and go to Heaven, but if you don't accecpt or believe in God you will go to hell. Hell in the first place was not meant for people to go there. It was oringinally for Satan's followers and the angels that agreed that they wanted to be like God. God wants everyone to go to heaven but some people choose to rebel and turn away from God. That is why we have free will. We are not God's puppets we can choose to believe or not. God is not going to force you to believe in Him. Its the person's choice. But the person has to choose wisely on what he picks.
So, you can be the kindes person ever, and still go to hell?
You could if you don't believe in Jesus.
A GOOD person, someone who has never sinned, can go to hell for eternity just because they choose to not believe in God.
First off no one is perfect. Everyone has sinned. We can try to be perfect but we keep sinning. You sin and I sin. Everyone sins. Well if they think they are living a good life without God and they don't believe in God they will go to hell because they choosed not to serve God or accept Him.
Do you think that's fair? That a good person be punished like that?
Well to me its fair because they choose to turn away from God. We all have free will to believe whatever we want. But it is your choice if you want to go to heaven or hell.
God doesn't hate anyone. John 3:16 - "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life."
God sent Noah to warn everyone that a flood was imminent if they wouldn't change their savage ways - but they didn't listen. Instead, they continued their barbaric lives, and the Bible says God was so repented by His creation, that it grieved His heart - they refused to change and were punished. After the flood, He promised he would never send another catastrophic flood the likes of which He sent the first time, and He hasn't.
He doesn't doom non-believers to hell. People do that to themselves by making wrong choices. He gives us all the opportunity of everlasting life.
I can agree a flood is terrifying, and I don't think there is any Christian that will say this isn't a hard topic to discuss. But here's the truth: when humanity first came into existence, before the flood, it became a barbaric race. I know I've probably run that statement into the ground, but I need to say it again here to make my next few points. The children were innocent, yes, but it was ultimately due to their parents' bad choices they were needlessly killed. God sent Noah to warn the people they needed to change. Rather than listen and concede, they flat out refused.
Abraham did the same in Sodom and Gomorrah - God told Abraham He wanted to get the gist of the situation before delivering judgment. Abraham pleaded with God and asked that the cities be spared if "just ten righteous people could be found." God agreed, but out of those two largely populated cities, there were not ten righteous people, and so He delivered judgment. Even in this case, Lot and his wife and 2 daughters were spared.
In Nineveh, evil abounded and God had decided to deliver judgment. As he had done with Noah, he sent Jonah to warn the city's people they had 40 days to change their ways. In this case, the people of Nineveh (man, woman and child), were spared because they reverted from evil.
He is not impatient or unforgiving. He gives us a lifetime to make the choices we do. And He will always forgive us if we ask with sincerity.
There isn't know way to explain to the atheist sorry because they are just lost in their science claims it will have to take God to deal with them. They also like to pick out no I mean love to pick out certain part out of the Bible and turn it around and make it negative against God not knowing the main reason for it at times. I think it is also funny how they know a lot of God and also saying that there isn't no God. When they say that it makes no since to me.
I'm inclined to agree. They don't seem to like it when their arguments are easily turned around on them. The burden of proof, for example - they're all for hearing us attempt to explain something that is beyond man's reasoning and understanding, yet they get angry when asked to disprove Him. Because they can't.
Impatience? Are you aware of what you are saying? The ark was HUGE and they didnt have modern equipment. Noah and his sons built it all by themselves since no one believed them, so it took YEARS. God gave man 120 years to believe him before the flood came. If 120 years is being impatient, i dont even know what patient is.
Someone who is a good person gets sent to hell. Someone who has never sinned, which would be difficult but possible, would be punished. How is that fair?
I see your point, but i dont see any reason to answer a question that has no chance of happening. You're just trying to get us to say yes so that you can say "Ooooh your God would send a person who has never sinned to hell! He must be wrong." That's like if i asked you "If the clouds opened up, and God said 'Everyone, I exist!', then would Atheism be proven wrong?" Of course it would be proven wrong , but it will never happen, because God wont do that. (At least before the rapture anyways.) Of course it wouldn't be right for God to send a perfect person to hell, but that will never happen, because there are no perfect people.
I wouldn't say that. I'm not the type to say "oooh you're wrong" and anyone who does is immature.
I am making a point though. Good people go to hell. Think of the nicest person you've ever met, they help people, never hurt anyone, and are generally always in a great mood. You're saying that person should go to hell if they don't believe God? You're right, perfection doesn't exist, but good people do and hell is, according to the bible a torturous place, a place no good person, or really any person, should suffer for an eternity over something as childish as believing or not believing.
I wouldn't say that. I'm not the type to say "oooh you're wrong" and anyone who does is immature.
Haha i know. I was just making a point
Good people go to hell.
But i think the point of the debate was about perfect people going to hell. Good people still arent perfect.
Think of the nicest person you've ever met, they help people, never hurt anyone
They might be nice, but theyre not perfect.
and are generally always in a great mood.
generally
You're saying that person should go to hell if they don't believe God?
Im not saying anything. God is saying it, because the person isnt perfect.
You're right, perfection doesn't exist, but good people do and hell is
According to atheism, there is no objective morality, so you cant say anyone is good, because it all differs from the point of view. According to Christianity, no one is good period. So either way, no one is "good".
according to the bible a torturous place, a place no good person, or really any person, should suffer for an eternity over something as childish as believing or not believing.
As i said above, no one is good. If you are assuming the judeo-christian God is real for the sake of your argument, then you must assume no one is good, because if he is real then that would make the bible real. And the bible says no one is good.
I see what you're saying also, but I must agree with Phantom. Everyone sins. It isn't possible to not sin. It's part of human nature, if we don't sin physically, we do in thought. Without sin, there wouldn't be a Hell, so naturally, everyone would go to Heaven.
The following passage is long, so bear with me. But I promise you it's worth the read, by Christians and atheists alike. Please keep in mind this is also a true story.
A University professor at a well known institution of higher learning challenged his students with this question. "Did God create everything that exists?" A student bravely replied, "Yes he did!" "God created everything?" The professor asked. "Yes sir, he certainly did," the student replied. The professor answered, "If God created everything; then God created evil. And, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then we can assume God is evil." The student became quiet and did not respond to the professor's hypothetical definition.. The professor, quite pleased with himself, boasted to the students that he had proven once more that the Christian faith was a myth. Another student raised his hand and said, "May I ask you a question, Professor?" "Of course", replied the professor. The student stood up and asked, "Professor does cold exist?" "What kind of question is this? Of course it exists. Have you never been cold?" The other students snickered at the young man's question. The young man replied, "In fact sir, cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat. Everybody or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-460 F) is the total absence of heat; and all matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does not exist. We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have no heat." The student continued, "Professor, does darkness exist?" The professor responded, "Of course it does." The student replied, "Once again you are wrong sir, darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light we can study, but not darkness. In fact, we can use Newton's prism to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn't this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present." Finally the young man asked the professor, "Sir, does evil exist?" Now uncertain, the professor responded, "Of course, as I have already said. We see it everyday. It is in the daily examples of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil. To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist, sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat, or the darkness that comes when there is no light." The professor sat down.
... I disagree. I think it's just something humans have created. Something that we think is necessary but really isn't. We're so far into this society it seems to be.
No way. Without evil, good couldn't exist. Without good, evil couldn't exist. If everyone were good, and perfect, the world would be a utopia. If everyone were evil, imperfect, without conscience, the world would be a cacotopia, if it even would have survived this long. The two exist and must maintain a balance.
My point is that good and evil don't exist though. They're subjective, and they're not actually necessary. It's just something we've created to keep people following an agreed set of rules.
No people can not go to Heaven by just doing moral deeds. Yes, doing moral deeds is great and everything; however, it clearly states in His Word that no one can go to the Father accept through Me. Therefore, it is impossible for someone to go to Heaven on good deeds alone
