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.
If "it" is used properly it could either mean, life or believing in God.
So there are two different questions here...
> Is life spent believing in God worth the belief in God?
or
> Is life spent believing in God worth life?
I'll stick with the latter...
This is a value comparison essentially between a persons life, where they do believe, and a person's life where they don't believe.
There is no way to qualitatively measure the worth of someone's life without factoring in happiness and suffering. Would the person with no belief in God suffer less than the person with faith? Would the person with no faith be happier, over all? I don't think the question can be answered.
No matter which way you look at it, though, it's life, and there's nothing greater than life... Life with or without the belief in a god is still life. Anything beyond that is a value comparison with no way to evaluate each way of life, so if your argument lays claim to any idea of a life or life style's value it becomes about as valid as you see the belief in God.
So here's the situation: You live a life of sex, drugs, and partying (rock n' roll is not a sin). You continue to live without God. You die. Now what? You rot in the ground? What do you have to live for then? What would be the meaning of life to you?
Why does life have to have an absolute meaning? I ingrain meaning into my life through those around me and my actions, not the hope that once I die there will be another chance at living a life that I'm already currently living.
This life is perfectly good enough for me, thanks. Once I die, I'm gone, and knowing that makes the life I have now even more special.
Then that doesn't answer any questions. Why was life put on Earth? Why does Earth even exist? Wouldn't it make sense to believe in God: He put life on Earth, either directly or indirectly(I'm not getting into that), so that we could live life in order to return to Him. Life is like a trial period. God wants to know how we can act with free will, sin, and detachment from pure good.
It doesn't answer any of your questions because you're asking different ones than myself. You keep asking why, as if there has be a reason and/or purpose for everything around us. I, on the other hand, always ask how rather than why.
How was life put on Earth? How does Earth exist?
All these questions are answerable, meaningful, and don't require a god. God has never made sense to me because it leaves me with far more questions than answers. Why do you assume that there has to be a succinct reason for us being here? I haven't ever experienced anything that suggests purpose to us being here. Maybe you have though, and maybe that's why you and I are interested in different questions.
You're assuming life was "put" on earth rather than the more obvious answer, that life is a natural occurrence, like gravity. Where you have x and y you get z. Just because there isn't life EVERYWHERE flying around in little spaceships and shooting lasers at us like "TAKE US TO YOUR LEADER!!!", doesn't mean that the universe isn't teeming with life.
Why does Earth even exist?
Does Pluto seem to have a special function, or serve a special purpose for human life? What about a random planet millions of light years away? Do you think that it serves mankind? It's a selfish and stupid idea, if so. Would your god be happy to know that you're so full of yourself to assume that everything in existence is FOR you?
Earth is nothing more than a combination of over-abundant material. Why aren't there more planets like earth then!? Think about it this way, when the lights are off in your room at night do you know that there isn't someone being murdered in Japan? We don't have the means to tell if there are planets capable of supporting life, but there are more planets in our solar system, more solar systems in the galaxy and more galaxies in the universe, and maybe more universes... in the multiverse. There are the same materials all over the place that we can find here on earth, so what's to keep you from assuming that earth is not the only planet like this in ALL OF EXISTENCE!? You probably don't even know what happened in the 1500's, but you seem to know that there has been nothing like earth, ever, in all of time and in the extreme vastness of space... and then on top of that your planet is the only to support life ever, and then on top of that even, you are 1 out of 498390485038453840589 of the most intelligent beings EVER. That, my friend, is wildly unreasonable.
...You're suggesting that there is a being like man, that created us somehow, that wants to teach us all a lesson so that we can love him... hrmm
I don't know if life is created from some god or if I'm just a random spawn of the universe, but life is a gift either way. The only meaning life has is the meaning you give it. Before you die, accomplish that meaning. We're born, we live, we die. The beginning and the end don't matter. It's the middle that makes life beautiful.
It depends on where you put the body, I guess, or where you die. Most people don't die in the ground.
What do you have to live for then?
Nothing, you just made me assume that I'm dead. Part of living for something is being alive. Dead things aren't alive, it's part of it's definition.
What would be the meaning of life for you?
Dead things cannot know the meaning of anything, because they are not conscious. The question wouldn't be applicable to me either though, because you address me as "you", which is the way you would address a conscious being that is aware of itself as a component of it's environment. In fact, it's odd but you've been calling "you" since my death as though I was still alive, even though you were the one that claimed I was dead.
Is it our fault that you assume a dead body possesses the capability to answer questions?
;P
In all seriousness though, you're asking the wrong questions. When you come to a middle ground for discussion you should be ready enough to know that there are answers that are unlike your own. This isn't a place for you to preach to everyone.
Don't you think it's a little more in line with Occam's Razor to live life for its own sake rather than the POSSIBILITY that there is something after? You sound like one of those people who watch the scoreboard more than the game itself.
Well I think while we are on Earth, we should enjoy our time here. However, this does not mean go crazy and forget about the end. There has to be a nice balance between the two. Watch the game and enjoy it, but glance over at the scoreboard every once in a while.
Yes because it helps you accept your life (it's God's will. He has a better plan for your life than you. Have faith in him.) If you accept your life, you wont be all pissed off and your heart would be better off because of that and you should thus live longer.
Faith is hope. Even if it may or may not be false hope.
For those who have been dealt a bad hand and have nothing to cling on to but dirty old rags and bread crumbs, sometimes the only thing that gets them up in the morning is believing that something is out there that cares for them.
Listen, folks, this debate was not really worded very well. Life is worth it no matter what people believe. If they believe in God, fine! Let them believe. If they don't, fine! What does it matter? Why should this matter to anybody? Life is worth living pretty much anytime.
I agree with your rebuttal JB. It makes so much sense. Even though I am a believer in God and my life has been worth living, I don't often think that God has His eye on me personally. If, at my end, I find there is or isn't a God, my life will have had the structure of a Christian belief system and the benefit of living for life itself with no particular end.
Well again atheists are going to go the ' logical ' way and believers will go in the route of ' faith '. I myself am a believer so my standing on this issue would be believing in God. The opposing side will be non believers this side will be believers. I mean these debates are so redundent. 1 after the other.
so congratulations I said nothing durogatory towards atheists or believers did I ? I stated my opinion thats like me saying there are white people and black people and a white guy says ' I'm one of those ' white ' people ' what do you want bradford a cookie?
science has proven that people who have some belief in a diety or higher being live longer, healthier lives, and are more likely to survive a tradgedy (such as an unexpected death, or fatal disease). The study cant tell if in the end what the person believes is actually true, but that doesn't apply in this case; just the simple belief that there is more to life than living and dying is enough to make a life more enjoyable.
It's exactly the opposite. Statistical motherloads, like Eurostat and UN show that the most secular countries, like Sweden, Norway, and Denmark, to name a few, are rated with the highest quality of life. This index includes factors like Life Expectancy, Social Welfare, Education, and Infant Mortality btw.
Whereas for Bolivia, Colombia, Paraguay, and a handful of African countries......
in statistics a correlation doesn't necessarily mean a causal relationship, that means not believing in God does not necessarily result in better living conditions, probably those countries with less ideal living conditions have a higher rate in believing in God because they need hope, rather than believing in God results in bad living conditions
I'm afraid you are going to have to come up for a link to this fish tail.
1. There are hardly enough atheists concentrated in any area to make any kind of accurate sumation of such magical events as the number who "survive" a tragedy such as unexpected death - as you put it.
My guess is the number of people who survive tragedies such as unexpected death are pretty much the same regardless, them being dead I don't believe there are survivors of any faith.
2. Sounds like the typical religious bs released to ye faithful to trick more of the ignorant into your flock, so again, I want to see the source... my guess is christiannews.com or some other such nonsense.
look i for 1 believe that there is a god but i think that all the gods are the same 1 depicted in different ways.
1.now lets say god is not real ok? and some 1 goes around preaching his name and helping people and giving people hope he is still a good person and will go were every 1 else goes in the end,
2.if god is real and he dose the man / woman dose the same they go to a nice place and get rewarded.
and in point "1" if that man did not believe in god he would probably not of done those lovely things and helped the world for the better and the only bad thing he would pf done would be talking to himself a few times a day.
also lets face it the Cristian view of death is much nicer than the atheist, and it helps people move on when there family dies, so i think beveling in god any god is better than not beveling at all.
I think so. It is always good to have someone we call God in our life. 'Refrains you from all those stupid things, that in the end you know, it wont bring any good in your life. It is also better to live the life He leads. We all are entitled to have our own beliefs and nasty things, that's one of his gifts for us Free will and I have also tried all those things that are considered evil and useless. But eventually I get tired of it. It is not worth it really. So I bring back my faith and start believing in God again. Believing in Him makes me a better person. Or that is just I want to believe. But really, I never have experience before this contentment I'm feeling now and I want to believe that it is because of my faith and belief of Him.
Its sad that the (no its not side) is winning, God has made such a great impact on my life IT iS WORTH BELIVING IN HIM!Are people these days really doubting the belief that there is someone who is more superior than our selves? The world didnt make its self, and no big bang theorie put the world in the most perfect conditions to where we benefit to every little thing in it. have you ever thought about the structure of a human being, who are you gonna say put that together, the big bang? Those scientist and their predictions, they aren't nothing but human beings just as confused as me and you. Humans have the natural tendacy to be curious, so we come up with answer for everything. This is sad, people you need to believe that there is a god. Im not good at making people believers and i really wish i could pursuade you, because through my eyes there is no other reasonable way other than a god that made this world what it is.
yes it is. even if you think we came from different origins,why should we tempt it? and besides, you get to go to heaven if god is real. (provided you were faithful) what do you get with atheism or evolution? you rot in the ground. fun. whats the point in living if you wont get any perks after?
it is worth it... god gives you hope of everlasting life and you don't just rot in the ground nothing after you know all that jazz you say there is a thing called resurection people!
In my point of view it is. yes we may not see God but i dont think life was just an accident, I view life as a test that we either fail or win. The consequence of failing the test, breaking the rules or just trying to cheat our way out is eternity in hell. The treasure of suffering, going through stumbles and believing without seeing but by living by faith results in eternal life in heaven, by trustong God when things seem unreasonable or like a joke we show God just how much we really want to get to be with him by paying the price which is being viewed as a weirdo and being disliked by others for his cause
if #2 then you end up lost or punished for your non-belief not a very benificial circumstance
if its #3 then you'll live a good life help the world and die with people saying you were a good person
if its #4 then you live like #3 but your rewarded after death and are happy which is benificial
so after that even if there is no God believing would have the most benifit since you wouldn't have trouble with the laws or drugs or other teachings of your religion you can't get hurt for being spirutual or a religious person except where you are persucuted for your beliefs
So your argument is, "believe in God just in case he's real"?
What if you believe in the wrong God? What if the Romans were right about their Gods? What if the Hindus are right about there Gods? How about Buddhism? Or the Egyptian Gods? How about the Mayan gods? Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
What if you don't believe in God but are still a good person? Is God really so self centered as to make belief in him the only stipulation in getting into heaven?
What if you've never even heard of God?
What if you believe in God, but are also a complete asshole?
so after that even if there is no God believing would have the most benifit since you wouldn't have trouble with the laws or drugs or other teachings of your religion
Believing in God makes you above the law? Or are you saying that belief in God makes you follow the law better? The former is just plain stupid, and the latter is presumptuous.
You're absolutely right on your first point. You can't believe in God "just in case"... He won't be mocked or fooled.
Gosh, I'd hate to worship a flying spaghetti monster, wouldn't you? All that sauce... Oye. Your faith in God wouldn't be wrong, believe me. The Holy Bible is not based on evidence but is backed by evidence, and is an historic book of eyewitness testimonies and fulfilled prophecies and is based on reason. Hinduism and Buddhism, are based on an experiential enjoyment or satisfaction with the text or gods they offer. They do not point to a consistent creator or faith. This is why faith in Egyptian and Mayan gods passed away. Islam took its text from the Bible, said "Jesus is great, but He's not God" (an illogical argument), "we like Mohammed better" and altered it to suit themselves, something strictly forbidden by the very Bible they took from? Therefore, Mohammed was a false prophet. And Judaism is where Christianity stems from—the two are forever tied to one another.
How can one be truly good and deny the creator of his very life? How can God be selfish if He gave you life? Selfishness to me, seems to be the one who lacks respect or gratitude to the one who gives him everything. Would your mother be considered self-centered if you disowned her and wouldn't acknowledge her existence but still had the audacity to want to use her house?
God makes Himself known to all—through eyewitness testimony, His word (which has been distributed to just about every tribe, nation, and culture in the world through missionaries for just this purpose), through revelation, through testimony, and through dreams and visions and miracles... All will be shown a way to Him.
If one believes in Him, and is an "_sshole"—then that person either needs to get help from a pastor or psychologist, or ask his/herself if he/she TRULY believes. If one wants to, they can repent. If one prefers being an "_sshole," then that person has made his/her choice.
Believing in God does help you follow "the rules" better if one is actually following Christ's example, but people do fall short, and all men, not just unbelievers, are guilty of sinning.
or some hilarious combination of those things, I want to focus on the funniest presumption I've ever come across (and I read nearly all of Joe's posts, at least he's funny on purpose)
"Jesus is great, but He's not God" (an illogical argument)
Please, please explain to me in logical terms, why it's illogical to think that Jesus is great, but not god. Is it because one can only be great if they are god? So like you couldn't say George Washington was great?
lol, I really don't understand why that statement would be "illogical."
And I would absolutely love to hear an explanation. I'm quivering with anticipation of a "logic" arguement from you.
I'm going to dim the lights, and pop some corn in anticipation of your answer.
Because, in accordance with your very own words in your other rebuttal, if someone believes in a fairy tale, they're nuts, right? They're not worth treating with respect. SO—if Jesus not only believes in God, but believes He IS God, well, he'd be the king of the schizophrenics—why would anyone say, "Yeh, he's pretty great, but he's not God."????? You either believe all of it, or none of it.
Again,
“Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.”
You know a lot of people go to the color blue after my first post on this website =] I got murdered for that comment me and Xaeon had a page of arguments with eachother woooo good times good times.
You can prove that the sky is blue by consulting text books you must BELIEVE in god =] not a direct quote but pretty close
er, I realize that I've been down voted to nearly oblivion in this debate, but it's certainly is not for a lack of a good arguememt.
The point is not that a blind man must rely on others to tell him the sky is blue. Or that the analogy of the blind mind is innaccurate, because it's a matter of everyone being blind, not just the one man.
The point is, that if one even excepts that Jesus was ever alive, then there is nothing illogical about this person having been "great" but not the son of God.
Messenger is assuming so much it boggles the mind, but one of the things specific to this arguement that he/she is assuming, is that Jesus at some time said he was the son of god.
Ignoring that there's no evidence this person ever existed. Ignoring that there's no evidence that he is the son of god.
There is no evidence he ever claimed to be the son of god.
So, you have a statement, "Jesus was a great man, but not the son of god."
This statement is assuming he existed. Which is debatable. And then assuming that he never claimed to be the son of god. Which is debatable. And then it assumes he was great, which of course giving the debatable nature of the subject, is debatable.
Now, Messenger, by his/her near retarded statement - skips over every step of logic a third grader would accidently use, and goes straight to "Jesus did say he was the son of god, (ignoring whether he ever lived, and whether he ever said that) and therefore, he either must be the son of god, or he was crazy for saying it (even though he may or may not have said it, and may or may not have existed) therefore, he could not have said it and not been the son of god and be a great man."
So, according to Messenger's infintile logic, Jesus is either the son of god, or a crazy person.
Nothing in between.
Which like so much of Messenger's insane rantings, is completely insane.
Given that there is 0 evidence of anything, every option is just as "logical" as the next.
I was making fun of him/her, attempting to use logic to support an inherently and obviously illogical arguement.
Welcome back... I can now explain the avalanche of downvotes I received earlier today. At least you're responding to this argument.
Other than the Bible, what evidence is there that Christianity is the "right" religion? And since when is the Bible a historical book? There is no historical evidence of Jesus existing, therefore Christianity must be based completely on faith (as it is with most religions). In addition, I'm curious to hear what evidence you claim backs up the Bible. As for reason... well as I said I'm very interested to hear this.
As for your simplistic descriptions of the world's religions, I find myself in an unusual position... arguing with a theist about the legitimacy of religion, from the point of view of religion. You clearly feel a very personal connection with your own God, however, you deny that that same feeling can exist for anyone else. Can a Hindu not feel passion for his Gods? Is the love he feels for his Gods false?
You claim that missionaries spread the word of God to nearly all cultures, but what about before that? What about the Native Americans who existed before the European conquerors? Were they sentenced to eternal damnation because of their ignorance? How about when the missionaries brought smallpox? Was this God's love?
You also seem to talk about Christianity as if it's a single religion. How about all the different sects of Christianity? Methodists, Baptists, Mormons, Catholics, Quakers.... which is the right one? Are they all right?
You seem to think that religion makes most people moral as well. Do not forget that segregation lasted longest in the "Bible Belt," or that the KKK touts Christianity as one of it's principles. Or how about the group "God hates fags"? Those guys are religious, and clearly assholes.
Your view of the world is simplistic, and leaves very little room for other cultures and religions. From listening to your arguments, one can clearly see that why religion, when in the hands of those with closed minds, has been such a divisive force throughout history.
There's a lot of historic evidence if you do some research: about 20 sites noted in the Bible have been excavated and confirmed in archeological digs, along with documentation from non-biblical resources from Greek and Roman historians of Jesus' existence. Just do some searching (they're too long to list here), but it's there.
I don't deny at all people of other religions may very much believe in their faith. What I've said is, throughout numerous debates, is that I've done my homework from the time I was an atheist, studied the world religions and what other religions are missing is consistency in creation and faith and reason. I have not found this to be so with Christianity.
That is an excellent question about the Native Americans. I am part Indian. As I said, God reveals himself to all in numerous ways. The Bible says "all have sinned" (Rom 3:23). Native Americans were involved in sinful practices long before the white man came along, as was the white man long before coming to America. Furthermore, Native culture is loaded with occult beliefs and practices, including the worship of rocks, trees and sky and of the spirits that allegedly live in these things: worship of the creation instead of the Creator. And if they could worship these things, they could have worshipped Him in faith. And many have and do today. But don't misunderstand: God needs to open our spirit to be able to respond to the gospel. There won't be a single person eternally separated from God ("damned") who can say "I really wanted to be saved but wasn't given the chance". God is an all-knowing, loving and just God. Visit www.h-net.org/~west/threads/disc-smallpox.html for further information on the possible smallpox spread by Europeans to Indians via infected blankets. Since I cannot possibly know for sure without having been there if the disease was spread intentionally by the white man to hurt Indians (there are differing accounts), I cannot judge whether Amherst's claim is true or not. But know this: God will not be fooled. Jesus did not come out of hate, but out of love. If people used His name to intentionally cause their suffering or deaths, they would be judged accordingly. Jesus says, “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? And in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I NEVER KNEW YOU: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” (Matt 7:15-23).
There are saved Protestants and unsaved Protestants, saved Catholics and unsaved Catholics, saved Baptists and unsaved Baptists, etc. (see above). All basically adhere to the Nicene Creed and respect and love one another. If a Christian's faith in God through the Nicene Creed's basic tenants is genuine, then they will see the face of God. If, according to the Bible, people add to the Bible or attempt to rewrite it or redefine its fundamental principles (of which most of the Christian denominations do agree on), then they do not actually believe in the God of the Bible—then they have created their own god (idolatry).
One (just one) of Christianity's goals is to make people like Christ, who was, by all recorded accounts, the most moral person that ever walked the planet. However, as I've pointed out a number of times, man is fallen, and there is evil in the world. Christians are just as susceptible to it as non-believers. Please, please don't write off Christianity because of hate groups like the KuKluxKlan or Fred Phelps group—neither of whom understand the Gospel as displayed by their fruits. Writing authentic Christianity off because of horrible actions by groups like those is like saying some white men have murdered people, therefore all white men are murderers, or some black men robbed a grocery store, therefore all blacks are thieves. Which is obviously illogical and untrue. Those kinds of groups do not represent me or most Christians.
I'm sorry you think my view of the world is simplistic. I don't condemn atheists—I once was one, but I was apparently drawn by the Spirit and realized that atheism was even more simplistic and without proof, and I am entitled to my beliefs as much as you are.
I have answered your questions, but I'm pulling out for good. I got hurt last night by all the hateful responses, and God doesn't want that. He doesn't want me to be hurt or to hurt others in response—some of my reactions, no matter what the provocation, weren't cool. I came to this site because I accidentally came across it one day and noticed many questions on God with replies that revealed many had been misinformed or incorrectly taught about Christianity. I've tried to directly answer the question of a debate as fairly and respectfully as I could, but it's become apparent that this site is more interested in hateful cyber-bullying rather than a respectful exchange of thoughts or follow the rules of fair debate. And if atheists read this and it makes them feel good about themselves to do that to someone or feel no shame, then I believe I've proved not only my point for leaving but for the need for God. But I encourage all the atheists on this site to keep asking questions (there's a reason "Doubting" Thomas was one of the twelve apostles!), but I would also advise listening and hearing others out with respect. And if you TRULY want to know about God, it's always best to go directly to the source. Peace.
Hey check out this link, I don't know if this will mean anything to you but my religion(the church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints) answers all of those questions you asked.
Please don't make fun of it, don't ask me if I'm joking, try to look at it with an open mind.
I appreciate you posting the link. I looked through it, but honestly the site is kind of difficult to find the answers to my questions on. Not that I doubt that they're there, I just couldn't find them.
In general the questions I asked were just to prove that the creator of the argument had a simplistic view of the world. I don't really care about a person's personal beliefs, but his argument was just hilariously flawed.
I will point out one thing funny I saw on the site, just because I can't help myself.
Is it okay to think and talk about issues that aren't taught in church? Find out what your LDS Guide, the scriptures, and Church Leaders have to say.
I'm sure it's well intentioned, but I just found it a hilarious statement on religion. No offense intended.
You know what, despite whatever religion you choose i just think it is important to know that their is a [most high] doesn't matter who are how people want to refer to him i just think it is important that they know that a superior other than [man] exist. and then the thing of being good if you don't believe in god, that is bad because it is pride and no matter what pride kills. God is not self-centered it is the same thing as when you have created a great work of art for someone to use in their museum and they claim it as their own without them saying thank you or achknoledging you for creating that work that gave them money. do you get it?
I can only hope that if there is a God, he judges you on the ethics of your actions, not on whether you join his creepy, misguided cult. Plus, good non-believers are more moral in principle than those who are good only for the threat of punishment.
There is. And every knee will bow before Him for judgment. Those who believe in Him will be judged differently than those who don't. When I pray to God, He in fact sees Jesus Christ standing in for me. He will see Jesus' blood. Jesus will then judge my deeds in terms of rewards after I pass—some shall receive many rewards, some shall receive fewer, but all will be saved. Unbelievers, if persistent in their unbelief and unrepentant, will not see God. That is their final judgment. It's funny that atheists claim this as punishment (which is how I, a believer, do see it), but for the atheist, this is exactly what they want—they don't want or have any need of a "God," so why would they care if they're eternally separated from Him (which is what Hell actually is)? God gives them what they want.
Plus a note: What is "good" to mankind is not the same as what is "good" to God. He's so good and so loving and so pure and so wise and so powerful, our best efforts at even trying to attain these things are "but filthy rags to Him." The only way He can look upon us is if He sees His son in our place, since His son is, was, and will always be, not just good, but perfection. Non-believers can do "good" or "nice" things—this does not make them unspoiled, perfect, obedient, or ample in true goodness. And, as I've said, believers, too, can be nice and charitable and whatnot, but without a genuine faith in Christ, this does not make them good.
Wow, 1/3 of the world is schizophrenic, and you're a sociopath with no conscience? Nah. You don't want to believe, fine. I was answering someone else's debate question with my viewpoint as a believer.
Again...
“Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.”
Must, must get this through my head. Thanks for the reminder!
Without reading any other arguments, I posted this too. haha. It's called Paschal's Wager. And although it's not the best way to think about believing in God, it's a start for nonbelievers.
Pascal's wager means nothing. It is neither intelligent or moral to believe in something just because you can't do something that is impossible, prove a negative.
"To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise: but I believe I am supported in my creed of materialism by Locke, Tracy, and Stewart. At what age of the Christian church this heresy of immaterialism, this masked atheism, crept in, I do not know. But heresy it certainly is."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, Aug. 15, 1820
There are so many things that we know exist that are immaterial. Take, for example, love, which almost all of us have experienced. We know that this exists, and it is not a material substance, so it would have a similar explanation as the existence of God would. And in the time of Jefferson, there was air, but nobody could explain it. They couldn't see it or capture it and they felt it was not a material. Of course, by now we know the details to what air is made of, but back then, this would have been just as mysterious as the existence of God or love.
Love in a real sense doesn't exist. It is something in our heads. I revel and delight in it, yes, but this doesn't mean there is an objective source for love. Are two corpses who were married in life still in love? You also give your own arguement away by argueing love because ,like love, god is in our heads too and while the idea is very real in the sense that it affects reality through the actions of people there is nothing substantial to back any of it up. Saying god told you to hug a tree for the rest of your life holds the same weight as if you said I love this tree therefore I have to hug it for the rest of my life. The differnce is love is innate and the idea of god has to be taught and indoctrinated.
Perhaps believing just for the benefits is a sin all on it's own. Should then, you be rewarded for your faith? The key to the kingdom of heaven cannot be obtained should it be coveted.
Well, first, to answer your question: Yes, believing in God is worth it. But you must know, that faith in God does not mean that you are perfect, or that you will be considered "good" by people (in fact, many will despise you and call you intolerant out of their intolerance), or that your life will somehow be void of suffering or the traps of sin and temptations of life. It's not easy sometimes, but is most definitely worth it.
The benefits are: You are adopted into the family of God and our now considered His child. How awesome is that?! It's one thing to have cool parents on earth or wealth or great friends—but these shall all pass away or come and go. He—GOD (think about that)—will always be with me and for me, no matter what trials I go through in this life! Secondly, by accepting His son as our Savior we are instilled with the Holy Spirit, which then guides us when we don't know what to do, convicts us when we're wrong so we will know truth from lies, and transforms us to be the kind of person we all really want to be but could never seem to do or be on our own, like His son, Jesus. But you can't believe "just in case" or "even if there is no God"—that would actually be unbelief, besides God won't be fooled or mocked. One must truly believe in Him to receive the benefits. Oh and I forgot a biggie: we get to live eternally with Him and Jesus and all the other saints in Heaven after we pass!
Well, first, to answer your question: Yes, believing in God is worth it. But you must know, that faith in God does not mean that you are perfect, or that you will be considered "good" by people (in fact, many will despise you and call you intolerant out of their intolerance), or that your life will somehow be void of suffering or the traps of sin and temptations of life. It's not easy sometimes, but is most definitely worth it.
So basically the only difference is in your head...
The benefits are: You are adopted into the family of God and our now considered His child. How awesome is that?!
It's not, at all, seems kinda lame actually. Do you have any solid examples of actual things that make it "awsome?"
Secondly, by accepting His son as our Savior we are instilled with the Holy Spirit, which then guides us when we don't know what to do, convicts us when we're wrong so we will know truth from lies, and transforms us to be the kind of person we all really want to be but could never seem to do or be on our own, like His son, Jesus.
Hm, interesting, this holy spirit you are instilled with, is there some way to measure this? Or is it just in your head again? And "like His son, Jesus," so what, I get nailed to a cross, tortured, killed, and millions after me will die in my name, and people will kill people who don't believe in me? SWEET! Where do I sign up. (that's sarcasm)
Oh and I forgot a biggie: we get to live eternally with Him and Jesus and all the other saints in Heaven after we pass!
Yeah? Pretending for a second that this wacky fairy tale is true, what the hell is so cool about living for eternity with a bunch of people that never did anything fun ever? Like, what do you do all day? Sounds retarded to me. No thanks.
“Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.”
Must, must obey God and get that through my head! Thank you for that reminder.
god –(noun)- Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
It doesnt say that god is whatever makes life worth living for to an individual. check it yourself in a dictionary! I promise Im not lying. God is a deity; not tv, internet, or anything you listed.
Why do people continue to bring up Pascal's Wager?
Firstly, it completely ignores the fact that there is an infinite set of possibile gods, and therefore the chance of you believing in the right one is infinitesimally small.
Secondly, it doesn't explore the possibility that the god that does exist either doesn't want you to believe in him, or punishes people who believed in the wrong god more than he does people who simply didn't believe in any god.
Thirdly, it assumes that god is an idiot and can't tell the difference between people who actually believe, and people who are believing just incase.
Living by Pascal's Wager is a foolish way to live.
I don't look at it as an end-all be-all to religion. I see it as a way to get others to understand what might happen if they don't believe in God. After this, people tend to find other reasons to believe. Pacals's Wager is simply a way to show that believing in God IS worth it.
I understand it's difficult to see who the true god is. It all involves faith. I have faith that I worship the right God. It's not as if ALL non-believers will go straight to hell. I feel, however, that God is a universal entity that causes us to want to do good. No matter what religion you practice, God (or gods) is there to make us all act moral. I believe that if somebody lives a good moral life, he can be rewarded in Heaven. However, I learned that Heaven has different levels, as does Hell. I would think that believing in God would enable passage into a level closer to God in Heaven.
I have faith because I have experienced the peace that comes through God. I'm not saying I've seen miracles, but I go to morning mass at my school in the mornings. I feel more peaceful on those days than I ever do in any other situation. God is a universal entity in that no matter what culture you are talking about, there is a notion of a supreme being. It's human nature to believe so. It's just that as time progressed, we realized that there really isn't a god for everything, like in polytheistic religions. Instead, we have God who watches over us. He allows the world to run on its own and makes sure good things come out of evil acts. And what else would compel people to do good. I want to do good, primarily, so that I can feel a sense of pride in myself. After this, I also feel I owe it to God to help others the way he has helped me. Even in ancient religions, people acted morally in order to avoid the wrath of their gods. They also sacrificed animals, etc, but that was culture specific.
Agreed on the Pascal's Wager argument. I would also like to add that if there isn't anything in this life after, than you have wasted your one and only life in fear of some spooky invisible being. That right there is the biggest loss.
yeah? and what reason would that be exactly? I want an explanation. Religious types are always throwing around "reason for existence" and I have yet to hear a reason beyond "exist to worship" or some other boring ass thing. That hardly seems a reason, more a reason to end it all to be honest, if we are talking an eternity of this nonsense.
What is more important? Truth or pleasure? It sounds like this thread is based on benefits and pleasures that come with "belief." If that alone is a person's motivation, that person needs a heart check.
Reflect on it. If a person has the right heart about seeking God out, I believe they will find truth. (key - right heart)
What about death? Is death without believing in God worth it? If there is no god, you have no fears, if there is you will get Heaven, rather than Hell.
God cannot be selfish he gave us life. What good is a life of pleasure anyways? I enjoyed myself and along the way made twenty different peoples lives miserable. Sounds worth it. God is gracious in that he gives this chance to be in heaven but he also gives us a choice heaven or hell? Heaven is eternal bliss eternal happiness. Hell is eternal torment. Which do you Prefer?
Yes, believing in God is worth it. Even atheist and other people say they see a change for a better good in people who are Christians, believe in God, and obey him.
Every man/woman ever born and yet to be born will inescapably believe in god. The only question that remains is the name of their god in which they believe. And almost all humans act and think in a manner that demonstrates they are their own god. They all presuppose that either there is a god that is their minister/slave/servant or they are themselves like god subject to no higher authority than their own dispositions and ignorance. Most scientists and Christians vociferously demonstrate such self-worship.
That is the point of my argument. The question of the debate is based upon a False dichotomy. It is impossible for any thinking or even irrationally thinking person to think and act in a manner that is inconsistent with his or her own predisposition to subject themselves to a supreme authority. That supreme authority regardless of its' name is a god. And more often than not people act as though they are their own supreme authority.
The term, god, is a title and not a proper noun. Many Kings of old and new world truthfully hold the title of god. So, the better question of this debate should have been: What is the name of your god, and does your god prosper you.
YES gOD IS WORTH BELIVING IN I KNOW I BELIVE IN HIM BECAUSE ALL THE THINGS I WITNESS WITH MY OWN TWO EYES ONE I WAS LOST AND NOW I AM FOUND BORN OF HIS SPIRIT AND LOVING THE NEW AND CHANGED LIFE gOD IS REAL AS YOU ARE READING IT . THE LIBERIALS HATE GOD BUT YOU KNOW WHAT I AM GOING TO KEEP ON PRAISING HIM AND WORSHIPING HIM UNTRIL THE DAY I DIE OR HE COME FOR ME.
The "wait and see" philosophy isn't the greatest idea. It's like a deer caught in headlights. You are like the deer and the headlights are the afterlife. You have no idea what is coming toward you. Then suddenly, boom. You're dead. You now just experienced the "afterlife". Is it what you expected? No. But better to believe in something and be wrong than to not believe in something and still be wrong.
If you are an atheist, there really is no point. You lose either way. If your right, there is nothingness after death. Life has no meaning in the grand scheme of things; you only live for yourself and when thats over thats it. If you are wrong, however, you go to hell. Its a lose-lose
Believing in God will at least give you some better odds. If your right, you go to heaven and all is swell.
If your wrong, well thats still equal to the atheist's BEST case scenario.
Pascal's Wager is a lose-lose for everyone. There's no reason to believe that the specific god any particular theist believes in is the correct one. You could be choosing to follow the incorrect god, and, thus, have just as much chance of being eternally punished for choosing the wrong god as I am for choosing no god. You don't have, as you think, better odds.
The only way to properly address Pascal's Wager--and if you take it seriously--is to believe in every single god... just to be safe. If you don't choose to believe in every god, then you don't take the wager seriously, and you're being disingenuous in using it to try to propose that I accept it.
No thank you. I'm not into religious hucksterism, so please sell your snake oil somewhere else.
Not if you subscribe to the philosophy of religious pluralism like I do. It doesn't have to be a specific God. There are many paths to the truth, different religions pretty much represent the culture of that region.
So like I said, if I'm wrong, its still equivalent to your BEST case scenario
Not if you subscribe to the philosophy of religious pluralism like I do. It doesn't have to be a specific God.
This is irrelevant and I call bullshit. You used the singular form: god and the concept of Hell. You have a specific, monotheistic, theological and religious idea in mind. And that you specifically used Pascal’s Wager means that you have the Christian deity in mind. And if you don’t, then Pascal’s Wager can be dismissed outright.
And if you’re being honest in suggesting that you’re a religious pluralist, which I don’t think you are, then the wager is purposeless, meaningless and ineffective. Not only are you abusing the Wager, but you’re using it as some contrived “gotcha’” tactic for some selfish and asinine purpose.
So like I said, if I'm wrong, its still equivalent to your BEST case scenario
My best case scenario doesn’t involve things that happen to me after I’m dead. I’m only concerned with what occurs while I’m alive. So, I don’t see how this is true.
My best case scenario doesn’t involve things that happen to me after I’m dead. I’m only concerned with what occurs while I’m alive. So, I don’t see how this is true.
Your best case scenario is that you are correct. If you are correct, there is nothingness after death. We simply cease to exist.
That is also what will happen if I'm wrong. Get it?
And if you’re being honest in suggesting that you’re a religious pluralist, which I don’t think you are, then the wager is purposeless, meaningless and ineffective. Not only are you abusing the Wager, but you’re using it as some contrived “gotcha’” tactic for some selfish and asinine purpose.
How exactly am I abusing Pascal's wager. It does not have to apply only to Christianity. I am not only a pluralist, but I subscribe to the theory. I do believe that there can be many different paths to the truth, not just one.
Your just angry because you can't trap me in arguments that you used to destroy your family with. If I'm right I get eternal happiness and you go to hell. If you are right then we are both still in the same boat.
No point to your atheism, its a lose-lose scenario. And you claiming not to be concerned about what happens after you die is BS
Please stop projecting your concerns and views onto me. Neither god's existence nor what happens to me after death are my ultimate concerns. I am only concerned with what happens to me while I'm alive.
That is also what will happen if I'm wrong.
You also have an equal chance of losing the wager by choosing the wrong god. Introducing religious pluralism isn't a loophole to this necessity, since the Wager isn't about religious affiliation or inter-religious ecumenism, but wagering reason and will for the promise of happiness.
How exactly am I abusing Pascal's wager. It does not have to apply only to Christianity.
Pascal's Wager demands that you hedge your bet on one god. That is explicit in the language of the Wager itself. You cannot use Pascal's Wager and then argue that "It doesn't have to be a specific God." That contradicts the very Wager you're using. So you cannot maintain both positions and be utilizing the Wager honestly. And to continue using it is to abuse it.
If I'm right I get eternal happiness and you go to hell.
According to the Wager, I don't go to Hell. I just run the risk of losing what is true and good. It would be somewhat beneficial for the both of us if you actually read the Wager.
Your just angry because you can't trap me in arguments that you used to destroy your family with.
Woooooow.
Here's a counter. If you believe that your position is correct and Pascal's Wager has merit, then kill yourself and prove it.
There is no requirement for the intervention of a God to live a healthy lifestyle. We're capable of making our own decisions without knowing where life comes from, when and how the universe began, etc.
And religions like Christianity attempt to reach into the realms of the unknown and not only fill this gap with definite answers, but it tells you not to do this or that and creates antagonistic behavior towards people like homosexuals, sexually active people, and people who drink or smoke pot. In other words, victimless crimes. Then it takes credit for basically the entire universe and people's natural tendency to grow and prosper. I don't see the benefit of following a cult that claims to know the intentions of an almighty creator.
The atheistic countries of Europe have already worked this out amongst themselves. It took centuries of religious persecution and violence to create countries with the foremost standards of living, without religion. I live without it too, I don't hurt anybody, I help out, and any culture knows that the best way to approach life is to live happy and help others live happy. No commandments required.
no why would one waste the time an effort worrying about god live life here and now if a god exists you will know soon enough, and if one does exist i would imagine he just laughs at organized religion
I do not think believing in god is worth it. I have spent many hours of my life contemplating the question of god. For me, a god that is so distant is not worth it. Why worry and stress about the afterlife instead of the life you got now? There is no point. For me, its much more worth it to put my energy into my life and worry about whats going on while I am living, not what will happen after I die. Who knows? What if there is no afterlife? What then? Point being that people should enjoy the time they got instead of preparing for something they lack knowledge of.