Forums → WEPR → [redirected]If God created all things
| 1849 | 255429 |
Here is something to get the brain going. It's been said that God created ALL things. Also it's been said that God is 100 precent pure/good. So God created man and it was said that because of man's sinful actions bad/evil things were created. But if God created ALL things then God created bad/evil things, not man. So by God creating bad/evil things this does not make him 100 precent pure/good.
- 1,849 Replies
I just don't see the point in trying so hard to prove that there is no God.
So if you go back far enough, you get to the Big Bang. Now I ask you, what caused this to happen, thus forming the INfinite must have been the first cause.
As alt has pointed out many time since there was no time "before" the Big Bang the concept of cause and effect may just be moot.
Another thing is that I wonder why we have these arguments when we all know that there is not enough evidence for either side to prove the other wrong so all of these arguments all end the same way.
As I have stated many times if there is no evidence for something then it's reasonable to assume it doesn't exist. Also as I have stated many times if we don't know something the most honest answer is "we don't know" not "God did it".
Since many wish to insert "God did it" into all the "we don't knows" without any evidence that such a thing even exists, then now we have a point to debate. Especially since some of those "we don't knows" are more like "we have a good idea how it likely happened".
I just don't see the point in trying so hard to prove that there is no God.
It's nto a matter of trying to disprove God. It's a matter of how poorly reasoned the concept is to begin with. This is why the question "Prove God exists" comes up so much. religion is the only thing that is fueled on faith alone. If we were to apply the same reasoning used in religion to anything else it would be regarded as almost laughable. I fact the mindset of religion is very similar to a conspiracy theorist as illustrated in this video.
The God Conspiracy
As I have stated many times if there is no evidence for something then it's reasonable to assume it doesn't exist. Also as I have stated many times if we don't know something the most honest answer is "we don't know" not "God did it".
Yes, I agree completely with this. Because when you say "we don't know," it implies that you will continue to seek a more complete understanding of the topic. When you say "god did it," it is like giving up.
Humanity as a whole should endeavor to achieve a higher understanding of everything. Maintaining that God is the answer to everything will severly inhibit this aim.
As Nietzche Said:
Faith: not wanting to know what is true.
I fact the mindset of religion is very similar to a conspiracy theorist as illustrated in this video.
Most conspiracy theorists are harmless, as are christains. Who cares if they think what they think? Only a minority of them actually act out by protesting. Yes, people use religion to justify anti-gay acts. Most christains against gay rights don't do anything about it. Let the people who aren't being jerks beleive what they beleive. Only a minority of people use their theism to justify BS. Because these people are the minority, there are better ways to get them to stop doing stupid stuff, because trying to pursuade everyone else there is no god is obviously not fixing the problem and is an imense waste of time.
Most people who beleive in God go on to live regular lives where religion effects only their own personal morals.
I beleive in invisible elephants. I honestly do. Why shouldn't I? Don't say flawed reasoning, because flawed reasoning alone doesn't hurt anyone. So why shouldn't I?
I know this section is for debating, and I'm not against debates agaisnt religion, but many people here seem to be debating as if it's their mission to pursuade people to stop beleiving in God.
Here's something you should remember about debates, you can't win people over with logic alone.
As alt has pointed out many time since there was no time "before" the Big Bang the concept of cause and effect may just be moot.That's just insane something had to create the big bang because something can't be created out of nothing agreed?
That's just insane something had to create the big bang because something can't be created out of nothing agreed?
You guys are still bickering about that? It's obvious! The Big Bang was created from a potato by the invisible elephant! It's foolish to continue debating about the Big Bang when the answer is so obvious. The real question is, what created the potato?
Yes, people use religion to justify anti-gay acts. Most christains against gay rights don't do anything about it. Let the people who aren't being jerks beleive what they beleive. Only a minority of people use their theism to justify BS.
As I have said the only thing I can think of as an objection to the casual Christian is that with so many of them it creates an environment where the jerks spouting BS can have a real voice and muscle to back it. The anti-gay acts are a good example of this. When it came down to if we should or should not restrict a group of peoples freedoms those usually silent people backed the few vocal jerks, making for enough backing to allow what the vocal jerks wanted.
Because these people are the minority, there are better ways to get them to stop doing stupid stuff, because trying to pursuade everyone else there is no god is obviously not fixing the problem and is an imense waste of time.
By eliminating (in a figurative sense of course) the majority the minority no longer have a voice. For example when was the last time you saw a Flat Earther taken seriously? The same should be for all ridiculous notions. In most cases (like those who still believe the Earth is flat) such notions aren't, but some how religion gets some kind of special pass. When we drop this special treatment and apply the same reasoning to religion that we do for everything else, without allowing the emotional bias to get in the way, religion dies.
I believe in invisible elephants. I honestly do. Why shouldn't I? Don't say flawed reasoning, because flawed reasoning alone doesn't hurt anyone. So why shouldn't I?
Yes I can use flawed reasoning because those beliefs can prompt a person to take actions they wouldn't otherwise take.
I know this section is for debating, and I'm not against debates agaisnt religion, but many people here seem to be debating as if it's their mission to pursuade people to stop beleiving in God.
(with typo fixed) "It's not a matter of trying to disprove God...."
Here's something you should remember about debates, you can't win people over with logic alone.
What do you propose get used, emotional pleas and fear mongering perhaps? Seems to work pretty good for religion.
That's just insane something had to create the big bang because something can't be created out of nothing agreed?
First off far as we can tell matter/energy can't be created or destroyed. Also creation requires an increment of time which there was non "before" the Big Bang.
As I have said the only thing I can think of as an objection to the casual Christian is that with so many of them it creates an environment where the jerks spouting BS can have a real voice and muscle to back it. The anti-gay acts are a good example of this. When it came down to if we should or should not restrict a group of peoples freedoms those usually silent people backed the few vocal jerks, making for enough backing to allow what the vocal jerks wanted.
Alright, I'm glad you saw this. It is true that when it comes to the average Christain, they will elect to follow the jerks who don't know what they are doing.
By eliminating (in a figurative sense of course) the majority the minority no longer have a voice. For example when was the last time you saw a Flat Earther taken seriously? The same should be for all ridiculous notions. In most cases (like those who still believe the Earth is flat) such notions aren't, but some how religion gets some kind of special pass. When we drop this special treatment and apply the same reasoning to religion that we do for everything else, without allowing the emotional bias to get in the way, religion dies.
One solution to tearing down the powers of jerk people such as anti-gay activists and the pope is to hoax more people into atheism. This is one idea for a solution out of many. However, it is easier to persuade christains and any theist that gays are not evil, than to persuade them that no god exists.
By eliminating (in a figurative sense of course) the majority the minority no longer have a voice. For example when was the last time you saw a Flat Earther taken seriously? The same should be for all ridiculous notions. In most cases (like those who still believe the Earth is flat) such notions aren't, but some how religion gets some kind of special pass. When we drop this special treatment and apply the same reasoning to religion that we do for everything else, without allowing the emotional bias to get in the way, religion dies.
I have not seen someone who beleives the earth to be flat. If those people are out there, then they aren't speaking out. When they begin to speak out and march towards the white house shouting that science books should be changed, then I will join everyone in arguing against them.
Yes I can use flawed reasoning because those beliefs can prompt a person to take actions they wouldn't otherwise take.
Such as sending donations, books, canned food, and clothes to the less fortunate? Religion works in both directions. Yes, I am aware that you don't need religion to be a good person and to send donations. You don't need religion to act out in negative ways as well.
What do you propose get used, emotional pleas and fear mongering perhaps? Seems to work pretty good for religion.
What happens when you tell someone that they are wrong? They become defensive, which makes them steadfast in their beleifs and decisions.
Let's say that there was an anti-gay activist here. He beleives that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry each other because God doesn't want them to get married. How do you counter his argument?
With a debate it's easy. I would want to know his sources or for you, use the line I've heard you say before, " I respectfully agree to disagree". Now, if that person is going to stalk me on my profile, or something equally creepy, I'll call the " mod-squad".
In person, such as at "tea-parties" and other political rallies it helps to be a part of a group as, (I am a woman, and you did refer to the anti-gay activist as a man) there really is strength in numbers.
I'll try the rational approach first by here again wanting him to quote his sources or show me the verses if he brought his bible. Bottom line is: Jesus has replaced the law of Moses, but if all this person wants to do is rant he won't have me for an audience for long.
However, it is easier to persuade christains and any theist that gays are not evil, than to persuade them that no god exists.
Unfortunately the issues can be numerous. Though on a side note I am glad to see so many Christian here who aren't anti-gay.
I have not seen someone who beleives the earth to be flat. If those people are out there, then they aren't speaking out. When they begin to speak out and march towards the white house shouting that science books should be changed, then I will join everyone in arguing against them.
They're defiantly out there... http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/
Let's say that there was an anti-gay activist here. He beleives that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry each other because God doesn't want them to get married. How do you counter his argument?
This analogy is very fitting to religion.
Question his beliefs and ask him why he believes what he does. The questions will likely be faced with either being completely ignored, answered with a dodge, or given an answer that can be easily proven wrong. However it might get the person to begin questioning there own views. Or another person with similar views but is more open minded might see it and it may play an indirect roll in changing the views of another person.
But the primary goal shouldn't be to try and change the persons mind but to get them to think.
But the primary goal shouldn't be to try and change the persons mind but to get them to think.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you suggesting that it's more important for this person to be an atheist who is against gays rather than a christain who supports gays?
Your solution:
Question his beliefs and ask him why he believes what he does. The questions will likely be faced with either being completely ignored, answered with a dodge, or given an answer that can be easily proven wrong. However it might get the person to begin questioning there own views. Or another person with similar views but is more open minded might see it and it may play an indirect roll in changing the views of another person.
I suppose that could work. If you can manage to persuade this person to stop beleiving blindly in God, chances are you'll be able to persuade him that homosexuality isn't bad.
If for some reason he continues to act against gay rights, then he's probably using flawed data. Maybe the data isn't flawed. Either way, you're back to square one. The only difference is his reasoning behind his actions, which results in the same ending -- one more person against gays. But if you're ok with him being anti-gay, as long as he is using something other than God to justify his views, then I can't argue against that.
As great as the above sounds, there's one problem. When you tell a person they are wrong, they remain steadfast in what they beleive.
If you try to convince this person that God doesn't exist, he will more than likely refuse to even consider what you have to say. Remember, everyone beleives themselves to be right in the heat of the moment. For you to say "God doesn't exist" is the same as saying "you're wrong." Nobody likes to be told that they are wrong, and rather than admit that they are wrong, they will fight to protect their views, even if it means using flawed logic or manipulated facts and opinions. It's human nature, atheist or otherwise.
Let me clear things up with my solution.
My solution:
Here's something you should remember about debates, you can't win people over with logic alone.
My goal is to persuade this person to stop supporting anti-gay activities. I know that they are strong followers of God. First, I must talk to this person away from the influence of others, especailly other anti-gay activists. I conceal my intentions and talk to him about his faith in God. I find things that we do have in common (or things I can pretend to have in common with him), such as the wickedness of drugs, the evils of cheating on your spouse, or the importance of the church. I would ask him questions and smile. I would say things I know he wants to hear. If I can get him to say yes after yes after yes, he will begin to see me as an intelligent person that he can relate too.
Great, now he trusts me. People are more willing to question their views when confronted by people they trust. This can be a slow process, but I can begin talking to him about gay-rights. I can suggest to him that homosexuals aren't all that bad. I would have to be subtle, but if he hasn't said no to me up to this point, it will be hard for him to break the pattern. I could talk about the rights that people have to be happy. Then I could slowly move in talking about homosexuality and how disgusting it is. Then I can suggest that it's their right and their life, as long as they stay away from me. If the activist does dissagree, chances are he will do so respectfuly.
Obviously, there are different things I can do to get him to change his mind. If he doesn't then at least he will be more open to the next person who is against homosexuality. If he's an extremist, then I would have to take him out some other way.
The way to persuade people, which I don't do very well over the internet, is to appeal to their inturests. You slowly make suggestions that they agree with and when they agree with something they originally were against, you make it sound like it was their original idea.
Obviously, there are different things I can do to get him to change his mind. If he doesn't then at least he will be more open to the next person who supports gay rights. If he's an extremist, then I would have to take him out some other way.
Thread is locked!