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.
yes, there r stupid atheists. however, it would be a mistake 2 say all atheists r stupid, most atheists r stupid, most stupid people r atheists, or that theists r smarter then atheists. i havent seen ne evidence 4 ne of these claims.
So what your saying is that its enough that you have faith in that god exists to make him exist.
Well with that argument you mean that all deities exist since people all over the world have faith that there God(Gods) exist.
As I see it religion was a way to enforce beliefs and ideals and also life rules in past civilizations. I would never try to persuade anyone to forsake there religion for my beliefs both since most religions have good messages that are worth following and because it simply isn't my place to judge others beliefs. This however doesn't mean that people that are uncertain shouldn't turn to real concrete things like provable science.
If you fear death, yet believe that God does not exist, then you are being irrational. Then again, maybe you uncertain whether death is the end of your existence. Are you ready to die?
How is the fear of death and no belief in god irrational? Death to an atheist means the ultimate end to their awareness and physical body. They have more to fear in death than theists do. Religious followers believe in a complicated and multi faceted afterlife, each religion structuring their own. They believe this is just one step, that they will continue to exist after this. Being afraid of no longer existing in a conscience viable platform is something we should all fear. Its not irrational at all. It goes along with our basic human instinct to survive.
I won't speak for any other atheists (yes you have been rather unfairly dunked in the downvote bucket), but you can go to my profile, check my points and see exactly how many d-votes I have dished out to you, or anyone else, recently.
(And to continue with the agreement that you technically never agreed to but will continue until you dispense some modicum of logic on our debate): You are about as intelligent as a giraffe is aquatic!
This is a continuation of something going on between thewayitis and myself. During a specific debate, he continued to skirt past the issue and change subject, as well as slinging insults at me. (In a later post he made, he claimed to do this on purpose, to "see people's true colors" or something like that.) So I told him I would return his kindness until he actually dealt with the subject at hand. Not my normal tactic, but I sometimes change tactics to deal with different people. And yes my insult was intentionally lame. Just trying to match his character.
From what I can see while reading over the posts, that the atheist are actually putting forth some kind of argument while your side is doing nothing but bashing. Your generalizing an entire belief structure over a few down votes. Your inability to allow people to believe things outside of your own beliefs is archaic and a form of bigotry. I am aware that this forum structure gets much abuse from people idely voting down and bashing. So to counter it, offer solid debate, with well constructed ideas and quite complaining.
Thewayitis: Isn't it strange how they go around down-voting posts without disputing you? Rather pathetic in my opinion. Furthermore, your final statement is so true. To be perfectly honest, I think the point system is ludacris and draws in the weak morons that can't debate. throws back head and laughs for hours
But it really bugs me how you target this group of people and look down on them. I understand there are some atheists who go about stating their opinion the wrong way, but anyone in any other religion does the same too.
You can't target a whole group just for a few of the participants. It's kind of narrow-minded. I just wish for you to open your mind a bit and get to know an atheist with his/her head on straight.
I target only the group of atheist here that deem they have some superior knowledge as to the origins of all of us. I have heard all the BS and lies to last one a lifetime from them.
When one is too stupid to acknowledge the fact we don't know for sure and probably will never know, than one can deem them as stupid.
The same can be said about any religious extremist that claim to know whether God exist is just as bad. I have clearly stated that I believe God to exist and have no tangible proof. When the atheist here state that they believe God doesn't exist and not that they know God doesn't exist, I will limit my harassment of them. Until then, their stupidity is mine to make fun of.
I just dislike how much you target the whole group. I understand that some of them don't have any idea what they are talking about, but that's certainly not all of them.
I can prove that I am not a religious extremist. I never quote the Bible, I don't claim to have all the answers, etc.
Am I an extremist in proving my point, probably. In doing so I make CreateDebate a little more lively. In the past this place has been really quite. The lure of down-voting me keeps them coming back and thus makes things more interesting.
No matter what you might think, you cannot clump people together like that.
Yes, there are most likely unintelligent atheists, just like there are unintelligent theists. But there are also very intelligent people from both sides as well. For instance: scientists and doctors.
Atheist here started the lumping of people together by claiming that all religious people are less intelligent than atheist. I am merely following the precedent already set.
I usually overlook and ignore debates like this that have no real purpose but to bash one group of people, that most likely just believe something different than the debate creator. But Ill bow down to curiosity and join in. No they aren't stupid, not in the least bit. Everyone has their own complicated belief sets and everyone has them for a reason. If someone believes their is no religious deity than so be it. Most atheist don't put down people that have religious beliefs, so why is it always happening the other way around. I am atheist and have my beliefs, not because I hate religion, but because I have researched many religions and felt that the teachings and histories don't quite have enough weight and reliability for me to blindly follow them. My belief is that if I am wrong and a god does exist, then he won't punish me for making a decision based on available knowledge and past record. I should not be expected to blindly have faith in and follow a belief structure that has been responsible for an estimated 809 million murders in human history. I don't force by beliefs on anyone, and wholeheartedly respect the rights of people to believe what they want. As a matter of fact when me and my wife have kids, we are going to expose them to many religions, giving them the option to be educated and choose for themselves. We are NOT stupid, we are making moral and educated decisions. Just not the same decisions you are.
Most atheist don't put down people that have religious beliefs, so why is it always happening the other way around.
I would definitely contend this generalization. In my experience (as there is no statistics) is that atheists are first to start the mud slinging.
I am atheist and have my beliefs, not because I hate religion, but because I have researched many religions and felt that the teachings and histories don't quite have enough weight and reliability for me to blindly follow them.
I know you aren't talking about Christianity, because God wants you to have a reason to believe in Him.
Romans 1: 20
For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.
My belief is that if I am wrong and a god does exist, then he won't punish me for making a decision based on available knowledge and past record.
The verse above shows your assumption is wrong. God has given us His revealed word, and we have all that we need to believe in Him.
Naturalism can't explain the origin of the universe, yet alone the origin of life. You put your faith in the flesh and rely upon the assumptions of unobservable and non-experimental instances. The Bible has thousands of testifiable witnesses, whereas the "billions" of years are far beyond any observation. I would doubt a well educated person would rely on constant radioactive decay rates for such an exorbitant amount of time.
I know you aren't talking about Christianity, because God wants you to have a reason to believe in Him.
Romans 1: 20
For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.
That assumes complete authenticity of the bible, and the absolute fact that Christianity is the only correct language. All religious doctrine has been written and many times translated by humans. Regardless of the truthfulness of the content, you can't say for 100 percent certainty that all the words and grammar are perfect. Many translations from one language to another have varied meanings, mostly up to specific interpretation. The many different versions of the bible and proven inconsistencies between many similar religions prove just that. The roman catholic church follows the same doctrine of many different religions, yet interpret many things different. I live a moral and upstanding life. I strive to help people around me and follow many of the same morals as theists. The only real difference is what goes through my head when I think of death and beyond. If you believe my choice to no believe will condemn me, then so be it. Its your right to do so.
I feel that our very basic infant knowledge of the world around us is not a proof for your beliefs. Think of what was unimaginable years ago. People with diseases like schizophrenia and other now understandable ailments were once chalked up to some demon or attack from Satan. Don't us our lack of informational development as an argument. Many things that at one time were considered a religious issue are now highly accepted and daily technology. We learned information and answered a question. No one can answer all questions, and that's why this remains a deeply trenched and volatile debate. Each side striving to answer the glaring flaws that each side has. Not likely to ever be answered but well accept many many of us.
That assumes complete authenticity of the bible, and the absolute fact that Christianity is the only correct language.
Your right I do make that assumption that the Bible is the absolute authority.
All religious doctrine has been written and many times translated by humans. Regardless of the truthfulness of the content, you can't say for 100 percent certainty that all the words and grammar are perfect.
The grammar and the message are two different things. With the Bible we have the oldest translations available and we can compare the different translations verse by verse. So I would say that the message is exactly the same.
Many translations from one language to another have varied meanings, mostly up to specific interpretation.
This is not the case with the Christian Bible. You must provide evidence for such a claim.
The many different versions of the bible and proven inconsistencies between many similar religions prove just that. The roman catholic church follows the same doctrine of many different religions, yet interpret many things different.
I do not support the catholic ideology, and I believe much of their doctrine goes against what the Bible says. I am a Christian Apologist and adhere to a non-compromising interpretation of the Bible.
I live a moral and upstanding life. I strive to help people around me and follow many of the same morals as theists.
If you are an atheist then you wouldn't believe in morals, as they are only a product of religious philosophy. But it is nice that you do try to help people.
The only real difference is what goes through my head when I think of death and beyond. If you believe my choice to no believe will condemn me, then so be it. Its your right to do so.
Christianity is far more concerned with just an afterlife. It is the very foundation of who we are as people. It's about recognizing our Creator. It's our relationship with God. Your relationship with God is your business, I just couldn't let that comment go by without pointing out what God's word says. Anyone who reads this discussion needs to know what the scriptures say.
I feel that our very basic infant knowledge of the world around us is not a proof for your beliefs.
That is understandable, I would like to say that those same basic knowledge can't prove naturalism.
Don't us our lack of informational development as an argument.
I absolutely will use that as an argument. Especially when atheists state "assumptions" as scientific fact.
Each side striving to answer the glaring flaws that each side has. Not likely to ever be answered but well accept many many of us.
There are no flaws in God's word. That's the difference between man's word and God's word.
For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.
I see the sky and the Earth, but I am not about to worship them. I do not dispute that the sky and earth exists, what I dispute is that your God is responsible. Your verse expects us to assume that he is the cause.
If we are to believe the account of Doubting Thomas, Yahweh PREFERS blind faith over honest inquiry.
I see the sky and the Earth, but I am not about to worship them.
It's not about for you to worship them, but to recognize them as having the inability to create themselves. The conclusions your draw from your "honest" inquiry is anything but unbias. The explanations you use to determine our origins is based on presupposition there is no God. So labeling your inquiry "honest" is a fallacy. The Big Bang theory is full of holes and unexplainable occurrences i.e. spontaneous first creation of energy. The discrepancies in the Big Bang have been theories of dark matter or dark energy. Blind faith is believing that out of chaos comes organization. An instance that has never been observed, but the Biblical accounts have thousands of witnesses. So who really has blind faith? I say the naturalist or atheist has no proof for origins and has no evidence of supposed occurrences of chaos forming organization.
Does anything have the ability to create itself? To suggest atheist believe something created itself is a gross misrepresentation of the majority of atheists beliefs, also to remind you atheism is simply a lack of belief in god not in and of itself a belief.
The explanations used are those based on observation, to based them on a presupposition that there is or isn't a god is the same as basing them on there being or not being the flying spaghetti monster, or any other mythological entity. The existence of such things are relevant to science only if they are observable and they fail to be(as expected from their definition of mythological/supernatural entities).
"chaos" is an ambiguous, subjective, and ultimately useless term.
Although if you want to see order coming from another type of chaos, look into chaos theory. (something which is very observable).
Science admits when it doesn't know, but it forever pushes the frontier of knowledge out to new depths and new heights, it forever questions. As such, various models will compete for consensus, resulting in "discrepancies" but not in the theories themselves for such models would never reach the level of theory in the scientific community. Ignorance about some specifics of the bang does not equate to a "spontaneous first creation of energy", for all we know energy always was, the universe cycles, etc. Fact is, when we go too far in the past, or we go really small or really big the frame of reference we use to make sense of the world no longer starts to apply because that frame is so distant from what we know. Ultimately the universe is absurd, and some questions will never be answered.
Witnesses are cheap and unreliable, scientific evidence you can reproduce and watch with your own eyes. The universe is observably expanding, we can tell this by the Doppler shift of stars and other celestial bodies; following this backwards it appears the whole universe would be condensed into a single point. There is other evidence, but that is the basic argument and I don't see a flaw with it. Other arguments I would expect from a theist requires knowledge to be taken as true which itself can not be confirmed as true.
It's not about for you to worship them, but to recognize them as having the inability to create themselves.
In the same sense that lightning has the inability to create itself, yes? Lightning as well as the earth and the sky have a cause. This cause is a set of circumstances which are acted upon by natural forces. It is a primitive human tendency to anthropomorphize all causes, as is seen in most old world mythology. The earth no more needs an earth-maker than lightning needs a lightning-thrower.
The conclusions your draw from your "honest" inquiry is anything but unbias.
As opposed to your conclusions which are completely unbiased!
The explanations you use to determine our origins is based on presupposition there is no God
Well, in order for one to believe that humans were created by god(s) one would first have to believe that there is/are god(s). Yes? So then aren't you guilty of precisely the opposite?
So labeling your inquiry "honest" is a fallacy.
And I don't think you know what the word "Fallacy" means.
The Big Bang theory is full of holes and unexplainable occurrences i.e. spontaneous first creation of energy.
Some of my Christian friends seem to think the Big Bang is strong evidence for God. There was nothing and then out of nothing came everything in a single moment. They think this is how God created the world, albeit it took a little bit longer than your 7 day creation.
The thing is, you only think it has holes because it contradicts your religious beliefs.
The discrepancies in the Big Bang have been theories of dark matter or dark energy.
What?
Blind faith is believing that out of chaos comes organization
Drop a handful of iron shavings around a magnet. Perhaps it is by blind faith that I believe that these shavings will align themselves according to the magnetic field. But what do I know?
but the Biblical accounts have thousands of witnesses
Which are recorded in the bible.
We know the events of the harry potter Novels are true, because Hermoine and Ron witnessed these events firsthand.
I say the naturalist or atheist has no proof for origins and has no evidence of supposed occurrences of chaos forming organization.
I say the fear of death is the primary motivator for religious faith.
In the same sense that lightning has the inability to create itself, yes?
No it isn't. Lightning is the result of strong currents of electrons in the atmosphere in a heavily active convection zone. The ingredients for a strike are already present.
This cause is a set of circumstances which are acted upon by natural forces.
Natural forces that can't originate from known natural laws. This doesn't explain the creation of the first cause.
It is a primitive human tendency to anthropomorphize all causes, as is seen in most old world mythology.
This isn't true at all. You are trying generalize all religions into one group. You should know better then to make such claims.
The earth no more needs an earth-maker than lightning needs a lightning-thrower.
Without a creator there would be no planet, solar system. galaxy, universe, or energy. Because natural laws can't account for the first cause. We know that God created and maintains His creation. Therefore He doesn't have to actively be involved in every occurrence. Lightning throwing really? Let's not throw pantheism into a Christian debate. As my position is well established.
Well, in order for one to believe that humans were created by god(s) one would first have to believe that there is/are god(s). Yes? So then aren't you guilty of precisely the opposite?
Absolutely I am bias. I believe in the Christian Triune God. I definitely don't hide that fact. But don't come here and claim "honest" inquiry when you clearly have a presupposition. To state such a claim proves a dishonest and uncredible position from the beginning.
And I don't think you know what the word "Fallacy" means.
I think you are quite mistaken. Your "honest" inquiry is anything but honest. As I have demonstrated with your bias i.e. worldview.
Some of my Christian friends seem to think the Big Bang is strong evidence for God.
I will stop you there. Your friends have compromised the Bible with secular views. As a Christian Apologist I don't allow secular ideals contort the interpretation of the Biblical account.
They think this is how God created the world, albeit it took a little bit longer than your 7 day creation.
You are referring to the day-age theory or the progressive gap theory. These are not concurrent with theistic interpretations of the Genesis account.
The thing is, you only think it has holes because it contradicts your religious beliefs.
Really that is what you think is the only reason. Explain to me why the Big Bang model states the microwave radiation temperature of space should be 3 Kelvin, yet it has been shown to be 2.7 Kelvin throughout. Do you know how they solve this? With dark energy, that is an unknown and untestable form of energy that we can't detect. It was made up to explain the discrepancy. What about the fact that all visible objects (that is through the electromagnetic spectrum) only comprises 10% of the mass in space. So they can't account for the mass that holds galaxies in place. This is when they made up dark matter. An unknown mass that is not detectable (that is through the electromagnetic spectrum) is what comprises the other 90% of mass in space. And this is more believable? Talking about blind faith right there. How could you say naturalism is the answer when it is all hypothesized? Don't confuse operational science with secular assumptions.
What?
Read above statement.
Drop a handful of iron shavings around a magnet. Perhaps it is by blind faith that I believe that these shavings will align themselves according to the magnetic field. But what do I know?
No that is operational science and physics. We can test, observe, and falsify our theories. The Big Bang doesn't fall under any of these categories.
Which are recorded in the bible.
We know the events of the harry potter Novels are true, because Hermoine and Ron witnessed these events firsthand.
The Bible is the compilation of 66 books written over several thousand years. It has extrabiblical testimonies of the people in it i.e. Jesus. Its accuracy has been verified in archaeological explorations. Not to mention the thousands of generations that testified to the occurrences in it. Does your nerd book have any of these?
I say the fear of death is the primary motivator for religious faith.
That is your opinion and nothing more then unverifiable arbitration at best.
No it isn't. Lightning is the result of strong currents of electrons in the atmosphere in a heavily active convection zone. The ingredients for a strike are already present
The ingredients for planet formation were present before the birth of the Earth. Does not cause always precede effect?
Natural forces that can't originate from known natural laws
And how do you distinguish a "natural law" from a "natural force"?
This doesn't explain the creation of the first cause.
Doesn't have to. The universe was around before the earth was.
This isn't true at all. You are trying generalize all religions into one group
Religions are already grouped by virtue of being religions. On thing they have in common is the anthropomorphizing of natural forces. A tendency to always see things as being caused by intelligent agencies. It is a relic of the times.
Without a creator there would be no planet, solar system. galaxy, universe, or energy. Because natural laws can't account for the first cause.
It is of no advantage to say that God is uncaused and he created the universe, than it is to simply say that the universe is uncaused.
We know that God created and maintains His creation
You believe.
Therefore He doesn't have to actively be involved in every occurrence.
Yet you believe God created the laws of the universe only to actively defy them later. Why is it that we are able to see light from stars millions of light years away?
Absolutely I am bias. I believe in the Christian Triune God. I definitely don't hide that fact. But don't come here and claim "honest" inquiry when you clearly have a presupposition. To state such a claim proves a dishonest and uncredible position from the beginning
Absolutely you're biased, or absolutely you take God's existence as a presupposition? The argument implies both.
Perhaps it's your presupposition that I take God's nonexistence as a presupposition? Perhaps maybe I have reason to doubt the existence of all deities? That's not possible, right?
Then do you find it unlikely that I take something as a presupposition which I formerly did not believe, and only came to believe after years or rigorous contemplation and study?
As opposed to someone who was lucky enough to be born into the correct religion, how lucky are they?
I will stop you there. Your friends have compromised the Bible with secular views. As a Christian Apologist I don't allow secular ideals contort the interpretation of the Biblical account
By Secular Ideals, I must assume you mean Science. We certainly can't allow any of that.
Explain to me why the Big Bang model states the microwave radiation temperature of space should be 3 Kelvin, yet it has been shown to be 2.7 Kelvin throughout. Do you know how they solve this? With dark energy, that is an unknown and untestable form of energy that we can't detect.
Perhaps you want to explain to me how this constitutes a "hole" in big bang theory?
No that is operational science and physics. We can test, observe, and falsify our theories. The Big Bang doesn't fall under any of these categories.
Wait, hold on a second.
Did you not say that believing that order coming from chaos takes blind faith? The fact that elctro-magnetism is an easily testable phenomena supports my statement even more so, than if it wasn't.
The Bible is the compilation of 66 books written over several thousand years. It has extrabiblical testimonies of the people in it i.e. Jesus. Its accuracy has been verified in archaeological explorations.
It must be true because the people in it really existed, and the places really existed.
Except that many myths, and legends are based on real people and real places but the events are entirely fictional.
Guan Yu, for example.
The extra-biblical accounts of jesus, produced at the time he might have actually lived don't describe him in any real detail and they certainly don't describe him doing any miracles or coming back from the dead. The vast knowledge of jesus comes nearly a century after his death.
That is your opinion and nothing more then unverifiable arbitration at best
The ingredients for planet formation were present before the birth of the Earth. Does not cause always precede effect?
You aren't considering the "ingredients" first cause, what would have created them?
And how do you distinguish a "natural law" from a "natural force"?
The law is our understanding of the force. Our understanding based on the most universal of those laws (thermodynamics) says that new material can't create itself.
Religions are already grouped by virtue of being religions.
Categorizations doesn't merit stereotypes. Would you generalize an entire race of people based solely on that race? If you believe this type of prejudice then you will never truly understand anything.
It is of no advantage to say that God is uncaused and he created the universe, than it is to simply say that the universe is uncaused.
I disagree, to believe the physical nature has no cause is pure absurdity. Especially if your world is limited to the physical laws of science. If you believe there is no original cause then you would have to believe you don't exist or that anything does.
You believe.
Mine and all other Christians beliefs.
Yet you believe God created the laws of the universe only to actively defy them later. Why is it that we are able to see light from stars millions of light years away?
Miracles demonstrate His power that He can operate beyond those physical laws. The distant starlight isn't proof of long ages. There are many different theories that account for such distance. The amount of mass in space with its gravitational effects on the redshift is not well enough known.
Absolutely you're biased, or absolutely you take God's existence as a presupposition? The argument implies both.
As your argument denies His existence.
Perhaps it's your presupposition that I take God's nonexistence as a presupposition? Perhaps maybe I have reason to doubt the existence of all deities? That's not possible, right?
Then do you find it unlikely that I take something as a presupposition which I formerly did not believe, and only came to believe after years or rigorous contemplation and study?
As opposed to someone who was lucky enough to be born into the correct religion, how lucky are they?
You willfully deny your Creator so you can live without guilt. You know that physics can't explain the origination of energy itself. To state the universe is cyclical is absurd and has absolutely no evidence supporting it.
By Secular Ideals, I must assume you mean Science. We certainly can't allow any of that.
No I mean untestable, unobservable, and unfalsifiable assumptions. That is definitely not science.
Perhaps you want to explain to me how this constitutes a "hole" in big bang theory?
This site doesn't explain the uniformity of CMB through the universe. Their assumptions are based on a rate of expansion. That the redshift is based solely on distance. They don't account for gravitational effects like what we see near black holes, an object with so much mass that light can't escape. The force of the gravity holds galaxies in orbit around it. Dark energy is absurd and the uniform CMB radiation only proves there was no massive thermal expulsion.
Did you not say that believing that order coming from chaos takes blind faith? The fact that elctro-magnetism is an easily testable phenomena supports my statement even more so, than if it wasn't.
The electro magnetic phenomena displays order that is maintained. The fact that it adheres to constants shows that it didn't originate from chaos. As it would return to chaos as there would be no known order.
The extra-biblical accounts of jesus, produced at the time he might have actually lived don't describe him in any real detail and they certainly don't describe him doing any miracles or coming back from the dead. The vast knowledge of jesus comes nearly a century after his death.
Which accounts are that? Don't forget many Christians were killed for proclaiming Jesus. People were slaughtered for speaking of what they knew of Him.
You aren't considering the "ingredients" first cause, what would have created them?
If I were to posit a cyclic universe or the Big Bounce as the explanation for cosmic order, then the answer would be: Nothing. In that sense the quarks that make up all energy and matter, would be timeless. The difference being that we actually know Quarks exist, and we have reason to believe they are timeless.
If we are to follow Occam's Razor, it is more likely that the universe is uncaused, than it is to be caused by a superantural being which is itself uncaused, because we have no evidence of such a being. You are just adding an unnecessary step.
The law is our understanding of the force.
Precisely. So your statement that "Natural forces that can't originate from known natural laws" is nonsense, if the laws are just our understanding. No one is suggesting this at all.
Our understanding based on the most universal of those laws (thermodynamics) says that new material can't create itself.
Are you familiar with the concept of Quantum Foam? On a planck level, particles routinely create themselves and then destroy themselves on a scale of time and space so small that they could have barely been said to exist at all. At this level physics no longer applies as it did before.
There is still so much about the laws of nature that we don't know. We have barely scratched the surface. By comparison, your concept of God looks very primitive and/or archaic. God was simply the way ancient people made sense of their world. The more we know, the more we understand that what ancient peoples called God, we call Nature. The difference is that you give human attributes to it and worship it.
I disagree, to believe the physical nature has no cause is pure absurdity.
Quantum Mechanics is pure absurdity, but we know it to be true.
If you believe there is no original cause then you would have to believe you don't exist or that anything does.
"If you believe that God has no cause, then you would have to believe that God doesn't exist."
-See how that little trick works?
No, for me to believe that the universe has no singular original cause, would mean I would have to believe that time is not linear. Which it isn't.
Mine and all other Christians beliefs.
Well, that's nice but it certainly doesn't make it a fact.
Miracles demonstrate His power that He can operate beyond those physical laws.
Which is why I said it makes no sense for your God to make the natural laws to only defy them later. For an all-knowing God, it shows a lack of forethought.
Why not make the laws to work for him instead of against him? Why intervene at all, if everything is going according to plan?
The distant starlight isn't proof of long ages.
If this isn't proof, then I don't know what would be. What in your mind would prove the old age of the universe?
There are many different theories that account for such distance.
And every single one of them is a rationalization, the sole purpose of which is to fill the logical holes in your theology. Despite the fact that none of them have any scientific evidence, or biblical support for that matter. To suggest that God performed some miracle so that we could see light from distant stars is an insult to my intelligence.
There are plenty of stars that are close enough to be seen without any divine intervention, there would be no reason to perform such a miracle in the first place. Such a rationalization exists only to reconcile the difference between reality and their worldview.
You willfully deny your Creator so you can live without guilt.
Bullocks! Everybody experiences guilt, atheists and Christians alike. We just feel guilty about slightly different things.
Even if I did deny your God to avoid guilt, that wouldn't necessarily make everything I said incorrect. You're violating the circumstantial ad hominem fallacy.
Needless to say (but I'll say it anyway) it has more evidence than the existence of God.
No I mean untestable, unobservable, and unfalsifiable assumptions. That is definitely not science.
3 Words:
Large Hadron Collider
This site doesn't explain the uniformity of CMB through the universe.
No, to my understanding it is inflation theory which explains this.
Nevertheless, that science cannot completely explain a phenomena does not mean "God did it". That would be an argument from ignorance, as "God did it" still has zero evidence.
The electro magnetic phenomena displays order that is maintained. The fact that it adheres to constants shows that it didn't originate from chaos.
Electro-magnetism doesn't Adhere to a constant, electro-magnetism IS a constant. It just shows that in a particular way, matter interacts in a predictable way, it requires no more of a cause, than if it didn't.
Which accounts are that? Don't forget many Christians were killed for proclaiming Jesus. People were slaughtered for speaking of what they knew of Him.
As well as any religion that was not-Roman. That people died for it doesn't make it true.
I like the use of blind faith vs. honest inquiry. Not all atheists are bible hating thugs. Some are good and moral people, doing the best they can with what information is available to them.
I can say that regardless of ones theological beliefs, we all look at the world around us in awe. It is amazing the trillions of living and growing things around us. The wide range of minerals and wildlife that are all balanced together. Each supporting a small piece of the entire system. Religious believers look around at what god created and imagine the work and care involved. Non religious believers look at the millions of years of survival and trial and error, each species developing excruciatingly slow. Adapting to the world around them. No matter what we believe, we see the wonders all around us.
Yes, there are stupid atheist. But being atheist does not make someone stupid.
And, in my opinion, atheist have more useful people than theist. Because they don't have a religion to keep them down from becoming something that can help society.
And, in my opinion, atheist have more useful people than theist. Because they don't have a religion to keep them down from becoming something that can help society.
That is so ignorant I can barely believe it. You seriously believe that Christians are held back by their beliefs from doing anything to help society? You are so far off the truth and so stereotypical its unreal. So you're saying that men such as Martin Luther King etc have done nothing "useful"? Mother Teresa who is famed for helping the poor, sick, orphaned, dying and found homes for the severely sick and has dedicated her life to the misfortuned? What about Florence Nightingale who is famous for her dedication to the sick? What about John Wycliffe who is famous for the first translation of the English Bible which has become the best selling book today? What about William Wilberforce who was the famous Christian who brought the end to the world slave trade? What about Elizabeth Fry who visited prisons that were overcrowded, filthy, degrading and evil things present and replaced the appalling circumstances with order and respect? What about George Meuller who established orphanages for over 60 years after the cholera epidemic and in that time caring for more than 10,000 abandoned children? What about Isaac Newton who invented the laws of gravity and the invention of calculus and who said "Godliness consists in the knowledge love & worship of God, Humanity in love, righteousness & good offices towards man"? What about Bach who has contributed immensely to the world of music who even dedicated his music to the glory of God? What about John Milton who penned "Paradise Lost" which recounts the fall of man and is considered today a masterpiece of English Literature and states that "The end of learning is to know God, and out of that knowledge to love Him and imitate Him"? They are all Christians who have changed this world you ignorant child.I could go on forever naming Christians that inspire thousands for their great works, so don't you sit there saying Christians don't do shit for society 'cuz they've done more than you could ever do.
That's not what I meant at all. But I can see how you could take it that way.
I mean the people who don't believe in dinosaurs, or science in general for that matter
And I didn't, by any means, mean all theists. I'm sorry you took it that way.
The people who refuse to venture into science, or anything other than religion, are the theists I am speaking of. They aren't really helpful to society if all they do is follow the word of God.
There was absolutely no need for you to call names. You made your point and you could have done it without calling me an "ignorant child"
And, in my opinion, atheist have more useful people than theist. Because they don't have a religion to keep them down from becoming something that can help society
That is what you said. I'm freaking sick of atheists changing their arguments to cover up their ignorant mistakes. Face you said it and move on. I can see why you're ashamed of it though hence your reason to cover it up and stammer on about how "that's not what I meant" and "I didn't mean all theists". Well, you should have said that originally shouldn't you?
That is what I said. I didn't change my mind. I said MOST. And I specified which theists I was talking about, something I should have specified before like you said. I just didn't think about specifying because clearly, as you made an unnecessarily long list of, there are useful theists. I assumed it was clear.
You didn't say 'most' at all, here is what you said:
"And, in my opinion, atheist have more useful people than theist. Because they don't have a religion to keep them down from becoming something that can help society."
I specified which theists I was talking about
You didn't do that either, not that that has anything to do with it.
I just didn't think about specifying because clearly, as you made an unnecessarily long list of, there are useful theists
Look, you made an ignorant assumption as clear as daylight so do the grown-up thing and face it then move on. You have changed your argument clearer than my dad's windows - which are so clear its as though he has no windows, just a hole in the wall. Furthermore, the list was not "unnecessary" as you stated theists were useless and that their religion kept them from "becoming something that helps society" which is just completely ignorant and false.
Why can't you just accept you made a mistake? I've faced to things I have been wrong about on this site and I've only been here around 23 days. Its not difficult.
Let reiterate my opinion to show you I have not changed my mind.
I believe that, majority wise, atheists have more time and reasoning to help our society in science. They don't go to church and they aren't bogged down with beliefs that won't let them question the universe. So, they get more done than theists. But theists who don't let their religion be the center of this world, do contribute a lot to our society too. But these are the theist who don't throw science away because what there religion tells them, they question no matter what.
Is that better? I'm sooo sorry I didn't make myself clear in the first comment.
Stop debating something that is completely screwed up; you have changed your opinion for all to see so stop rambling and face it or just don't respond. Sure, its easy to make an ignorant claim then in the next post after being proved wrong say "oops, I didn't mean that, here, let me specify" whatever, I see it all the bucking time from atheists/non believers. And stop saying sorry for "I didn't make myself clear" because you flat out made an ignorant claim then proceeded to change your argument without admitting to being entirely wrong.
Don't worry, I'm done with this one. Seeing as you just assume I'm wrong. And I not once said I'm a non believer, but I love how you just assumed that.
I'm done with this one. Seeing as you just assume I'm wrong
You're wrong and this is for all to see. It is right there and you cannot edit it. For the record, you'd look a lot more mature if you just accepted it and I'd probably respect you for it too.
I thought you were done? Furthermore, your continuation to deny changing your argument is both childish and childish. Why not just admit it? It is there for all to see, you make the most ignorant assumption I have ever been presented with during my time here. I proved you very, very wrong and then you realized how ignorant you had been, felt ashamed, and proceeded to say "no, THIS is what I meant" lol, so freaking obvious. You people that think you can fool others with this crap seriously are pathetic. No offence.
This is question is almost an oxymoron, my answer is a definite no. Anyone who takes the metaphors of any religion seriously is far more stupid than an athiest.
I disagree, the evolution of human morals and a family based social structure is a direct result of religious followers interpreting those metaphors and following their guidelines. They are not stupid, they are exercising their right to do so. I don't agree with them in any way shape or form. But the structure based on fear and cause and effect have helped us create a world not based on compulsion and instinct, but on right and wrong. I am grateful that the world has developed as such and given me the opportunity to live in relative safety and with the freedom to choose what I believe.
But the structure based on fear and cause and effect have helped us create a world not based on compulsion and instinct, but on right and wrong.
How can you say that when morality differs so greatly from one place to another? The Aztecs didn't find it wrong to make human sacrifices to appease some of their gods. Were they wrong for doing so?
By humanist standards there is no right and wrong. And death doesn't matter as it is necessary for the advancement of the species.
Your sole intention here seems to be to slander those who don't share your narrow-minded views. If you continue this charade of self-righteousness, I can make a fool of you. If you seek knowledge, you must put your prejudices aside.
Look those metaphors and guidelines arose because of man's humanity towards his fellow man, sure they dressed it upo in religion, but the fact is that all the wisdom contained in the bible is worldly wisdon, the accumulated wisdom of many generations. I agree that some people get their morals primarily because they beleive in the supernatural side of the bible but all this is in my opinion is a way to dress up the mataphors contained within in order to make the more palatable to the general population.
Anyway in my opinion if someone takes the metaphors of the bible seriously e.g. beleives in the story of creation or Noahs ark or whatever, they are far more stupid than any athiest.
I agree with a good portion of what you are saying. I believe that religion was a way to pass on morals and standards to other generations without them being questioned. I don't think people are stupid for believing in what they do, its a way for them to answer the most basic questions that humans have. Regardless of the accuracy of anyones belief, they give people hope and some piece of mind.
You see i agree with theh first portion of what you wrotet but then you had to go and say "its a way for them to answer the most basic questions that humans have." Now i agree with this is you meant in the way that a person goes to a fortune teller in order to be told there lost loved one is looking doen on them etc. etc. However of you are proposing that religion actaully offers answers i strongly disagree, religion is an opiate of the masses, some need it, some don't. The fact that some need to beleive in it does not make it true, i agree that thousandsd of years of human wisdom is contained within the bible but that is all it is (human).
"some piece of mind"
You shouldn't need to beleive in fairytales to obtain piece of mind.
Really? This is credible to you, one man's opinions. You really desire to deny your Creator don't you?
This ONE MAN, just so happens to be a distinguished Biblical Scholar, a professor of religious studies and former president of the Society of Biblical Literature.
Many will follow their evil teaching and shameful immorality. And because of these teachers, the way of truth will be slandered.
2 Peter 1:20
But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation
This ONE MAN, just so happens to be a distinguished Biblical Scholar, a professor of religious studies and former president of the Society of Biblical Literature.
This one man preaches against the scripture and defames it.
people die in car accidents all the time,fires,aids diseases,homicide,suicide,and people tell me theres a god?. wake up people,what planet are you living on.
First, we need some minimum requirements that the universe must possess in order to comply with God's stated purpose for designing the universe, according to the Bible. So, this essay will not address possible purposes for the universe as delineated in other religious writings, which, I believe, do not provide much of a challenge to the non-belief of skeptics. Therefore, I do not intend to defend the easily refuted claims of other religions or atheists' ideas about how best to create the optimal universe. None of the requirements below represent some fringe Christian beliefs, but are central to the tenets of all Christian beliefs. Justification for each requirement is listed below. Any atheists' claims that these requirements are not central to Christianity are spurious, at best. Here is the list:
The universe must allow for the existence of sentient creatures.
These sentient creatures must have the ability to make moral choices.
The universe must operate by physical laws that are reliable, so that the sentient creatures will be able to interact reliably with their surroundings and each other.
The universe must declare the power and glory of God
Although we have shown that the laws of physics require the existence of all natural evils defined by atheists, it is still possible that God could have chosen different laws of physics. Even so, the different laws of physics would still need to allow requirements 1-4, above. Virtually every process that makes human beings unique require the operation of thermodynamic laws. However, these laws also result in almost all natural evil. So, it is unclear how the laws of physics could be substantially different from what they are and yet still produce a universe in which sentient creatures would be allowed to make moral choices.
the bible says:ask and it shall be given,seek and you shall find.knock and the door will be open to you,yet clearly a christian housewife can pray for mustard to come out of her blouse and wala, a miracle!!!
do you know that michael persinger made the god helmet, in which 80 percent of its wearers would ''experience god''. god is a ''feeling'' an ''emotional need'' for those who arent too open-minded. scientists and laymen have used countless logical arguments to prove that god is a logical fallacy, a result of an overactive or unusually active posterior parietal cortex. you dont believe in allah do you?, how about vishnu, or sheva, or zeus, or thor.
No, God has not left His name etched onto the surface of planets. However, there is abundant evidence that the universe was designed by super intelligent Agent, who purposed that the universe should exist and be capable of supporting advanced life. The design of the universe is just one line of evidence that God created the universe. The design of the earth and solar system is also quite impressive. Likewise, chemistry and physics preclude the possibility that life evolved on earth. In addition, human beings are remarkably different from every other animal on earth, suggesting a departure from naturalistic processes.
Yes, many religious truth claims are testable. Those who are truly interested in whether a religion represents truth should test the claims to see how they stand against the evidence. Modern cosmology destroys the Hindu model for the universe, but affirms the Judeo-Christian model. Cosmology and earth sciences destroy the strange assertions of the Quran. Archeology, cosmology and molecular biology destroy the claims of the LDS Book of Mormon., but confirm many claims from the Bible. For an ancient document written thousands of years ago, the Bible makes some remarkable scientific claims - many of which were not verified until this century. However, the Bible was never written to serve as a science textbook, but was given as guide to having a relationship with God and our fellow human beings. The Bible answers the "why" and "what" questions that naturalism says are unanswerable: