Forums → WEPR → Disproving god
| 352 | 61433 |
So I just have a question to every one. What is the point in proving god to not exist? What makes it worth while to sit and flip out on people, the goverment, schools, kids, parents.....that they are wrong, and science is wrong?
I understand having an oppinion, and trying to get others to beilve that. But Have any of you heard of Pascals wager?
What he said was basically, if you belive in god, and he is real, you lived a good live, and if you belive in god, and he's not real, you lost nothing, but lived a life of good morals, which I will touch on in a second. However, If he is real, and you didn't beilve you go to hell. And if you didn't beilve and he isn't real, then you lost nothing, other then being remembered as a person who didn't care about morals.
I would like you to go read the ten commandments, and the other moral wrongs in the bible. How are ANY of them bad?
All I'm really trying to gather here, is what is the point in tryign to prove god as fake? Why does it matter if you beilve in god? And what do you lose by beilveing in him?
- 352 Replies
For better clarification on all those for this topic, what is it, exactly, about God that causes you to not believe in Him?
I'm honestly disappointed that nobody replied to my post yet over on page 2. I would appreciate it if someone could try arguing against it.
Or mine. I thought I did a pretty good job with my post... bummer >_>
For better clarification on all those for this topic, what is it, exactly, about God that causes you to not believe in Him?
Basically about disproving god, and the argument against disproving god. However, this thread skewed into something about how and why they believe in God, something that should be left for another thread altogether.
come one you make things like islam and christianity sound so harsh. its not a fantasy. i dont think i live in the zoony world with fishes that can talk. i believe god made jesus who died for our sins. the church isnt jsut to teach you about god it helps you into a better state of mind. its not all about the hardcore parts of the bible its about it all as a whole. and what its done for people as a whole in our modern era
Get it wright, snakes not fish can talk. And it has just as many negative morals as positive ones, like my last "Stone your wife" Example.
i know people that used to be hardcore addicts and users untill they had a sponser and were rehabilitating. they went to the church and found meening for themselves, sure the relapced but every addict does and the church helped them through it.
And I know Christians who are stoners. Christianity only helps a lucky few, and religion has a whole has damaged more.
its when people blow everything otu of preportion with religeon that things go wrong. like hitler and stuff. but when you look at it, there has been no religeous war in a very long time and as long as people respect eachother, there wont need to be another one.
Your wr...*Muslim extremist crash a plane into my house*
you act like all the books and the people are just a straight do this and dont do that and you will be good, but its not theres more to it.
Your Bible disagrees. According to it, do this and don't do that and your good. Such as the ten commandments, don't do this and do that and your good.
For better clarification on all those for this topic, what is it, exactly, about God that causes you to not believe in Him?
What makes you not believe in my unicorn pets I keep next to the money tree? And if you do not get sarcasm, lack of evidence.
Your Bible disagrees.
......... did you even read the post before quoting it i said theres more to it. you have to read the entire bible to understand the whole meaning
......... did you even read the post before quoting it i said theres more to it. you have to read the entire bible to understand the whole meaning
I think of it as a collection of morals and themes to better shape your character and moral standing. However, some of these morals are negative by today's standards, and should be taken away as such, to prevent those from seeing this as acceptable.
It's when people blow everything otu of preportion with religeon that things go wrong. like hitler and stuff. but when you look at it, there has been no religeous war in a very long time
There's a scratching in my occipital cortex that gives me a feeling that tells me that there was a religious war about 9 years ago that still goes on today, but it's probably just nerves.
So this thread is just about Disproving God, while others try to prove it? Right...
Personally, I don't believe in God. I know that the Bible isn't proof to God. As many things in the Bible are Flawed.
Just a short summary of what I think.
However Krizaz, this is also a thread that was made to back up claims with evidence, so you might have to contribute to that. Or you can argue my wall of text on the 5th page if you'd like. Or both-- either way would help this thread out
Basically about disproving god, and the argument against disproving god. However, this thread skewed into something about how and why they believe in God, something that should be left for another thread altogether.
You still didn't answer my question. I'm asking you personally, why do you not believe?
What makes you not believe in my unicorn pets I keep next to the money tree? And if you do not get sarcasm, lack of evidence.
And there is evidence proving that we are free to roam this world, do what ever we please, and then fade into nothing? Is there any evidence that describes where the gases that caused the 'big bang' to happen came from? Surely not out of thin air, that would go against science! After all, matter nor energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only be converted.
Instead of stumbling over your own hypotheses, at least creationists have it scientifically correct with physics: If God were real, and if He matches all the descriptions of Him (i.e. Omnipotence, etc.) then it would be logical to assume that God is an overflowing abundance of energy, which was converted into matter when He created the earth.
And it has just as many negative morals as positive ones, like my last "Stone your wife" Example.
And that is a common occurrence of horribly structured arguments: taking passages out of context. If you are referring to Deut. 13:6-7, then you are taking it out of its context that says,
âIf your brother, the son of your mother, or your son or your daughter or the wife you embrace or your friend who is as your own soul entices you secretly, saying, âLet us go and serve other gods,â which neither you nor your fathers have known, some of the gods of the peoples who are around you, whether near you or far off from you, from the one end of the earth to the other, you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him. But you shall kill him. Your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people.
The Bible, in this context is not telling you to go out and randomly go and kill your wife, or brother, son, daughter, etc., rather, to go and kill, perhaps figuratively or not, because they attempted to lead you astray and take you away from The Lord God.
It is like a parent and their child; if that child chooses to make friends and hang out with people who say drugs are cool, parents are lame, and school is for idiots, then obviously the parent would not want that child to be in that company any longer. For a rotten apple in a barrel of fresh ones can destroy the whole bushel, but one good one in a rotten barrel becomes rotten itself.
For a rotten apple in a barrel of fresh ones can destroy the whole bushel, but one good one in a rotten barrel becomes rotten itself.
So what your metaphor is saying, form reading your post is...
1 Priest who abuses can bring them all down, while 1 priest who doesn't in a crowd of abusers, gets rotten himself.
I think thats what your saying.
The priest thing is form the recent allegations.
Actually not so, an abusive priest does make him rotten. You fail to understand the allegory completely; the metaphor shows how good can become bad, but bad can't become good. Take this allegory for example; If a man is chained to a rotting corpse, in time, that man will also rot. But no matter how many living men you chain to that corpse, it will never regain it's flesh.
nd that is a common occurrence of horribly structured arguments: taking passages out of context. If you are referring to Deut. 13:6-7, then you are taking it out of its context that says,
�If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son or your daughter or the wife you embrace or your friend who is as your own soul entices you secretly, saying, �Let us go and serve other gods,� which neither you nor your fathers have known, some of the gods of the peoples who are around you, whether near you or far off from you, from the one end of the earth to the other, you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him. But you shall kill him. Your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people.
The Bible, in this context is not telling you to go out and randomly go and kill your wife, or brother, son, daughter, etc., rather, to go and kill, perhaps figuratively or not, because they attempted to lead you astray and take you away from The Lord God.
It is like a parent and their child; if that child chooses to make friends and hang out with people who say drugs are cool, parents are lame, and school is for idiots, then obviously the parent would not want that child to be in that company any longer. For a rotten apple in a barrel of fresh ones can destroy the whole bushel, but one good one in a rotten barrel becomes rotten itself.
Perhaps I had made myself unclear, as the Bible stones a tone of people. The "Stone your wife" example referred to the passage saying "Stone your wife if she slept with someone before you" witch in this day, is highly possible.
And, as for your "Bad can not become good" poorly thought out "argument", it has no bearing on reality. Though it is true the dead can not be remade, and that an apple can not be repaired, it is false in saying mentality can not change. I will give the example of the play "Le Miserables", the main character was considered bad as he was a thief, yet he redeemed himself once the need was gone.
I'm not giving up the argument for a matter of saying that mentality cannot change, rather, I am saying that a good person in the midst of a sea of wickedness and evil, no matter how strong, always is under the threat of become wicked himself. As for Les Mis, Valjean also sees the power and grace of God and offers his soul to Him. It wasn't through Valjean's own power that he was made better, rather it was through the power of God. Even if the need didn't arise to steal, he was still drawn to it, hence him stealing the silver from the priest, but then Valjean went through a moment of grace from the priest, and then a time of redemption from God.
Now, I'm not saying that every aspect of religion in the musical is good, I'm saying that there are some nuggets of truth embedded in there.
While it may be true that a Christians heart is in the right place I don't think all Christian morals are gold. Should I then just lie?
It's a change of they way people think, sometimes it's a matter of challenging long held beliefs. But changing those beliefs is only secondary.
I'm not saying that you shouldn't ever talk to theists about God and why he doesn't exist. I'm saying that you can't argue with them if they don't want to talk about it. If they do want to talk about it, by all means talk about it! If you talk to a theist and tell him God isn't real and he tells you that you're wrong and wants you to leave him alone, then that's as far as you should go. If you point out how his views are wrong, then you are no better than the theist trying to convert people to their religion. It may be simple logic to you, but to the man you are debating with, it's not logic at all. "But it is logic because it has scientigic blah and no proof blah blah blah", do you honestly think they care?
If they accept your debate, then go ahead and debate. If they tell you to drop it, then you will be nothing more than a hypocrite if you continue to challenge him against his will.
Well one aspect would be to point out flaws in there logic as for not believing in God they can come to that conclusion for themselves.
So far, I pointed out flaws in your thinking. Each time I pointed out a flaw, you countered it with something. I'm certain that you believe yourself to be right and justified in each rebuttal. How you feel is how theists feel when they make their rebuttals. It doesn't matter if they are right or wrong because they believe themselves to be justified.
You can tell a man that there's a problem with his logic all you want, but it rarely does anything more than put him on the defensive. If you're trying to convert someone's way of thinking, you don't tell them all the ways they are wrong, but all the ways they are right. The only time you tell a man he is wrong is if you do so in front of their peers, that way you may recruit their peers to your way of thinking.
Yes repetition is a tool in learning weather it be with a group that wants to learn or not. Perhaps you've heard the phrase "show me proof God exists" once or twice around here?
I'll explain proof of God's existence. Religion exists. There's not way it should. People should have doubted it. The only way people can still believe in God is if there was a God.
Do I honestly believe the above to be true? It doesn't matter, because if I do, then you won't be able to change my mind by pointing out flaws in my logic, because all I have to do is say "no, ur rong" and we go back to the drawing board.
A true win in a debate is what you take away from it this goes double for online debates.
This is not a fact, this is your opinion. Why do you think politicians avoid details when talking to the people? Their job is to motivate, not to educate. If what they say sounds true, people will vote for them. They gain their votes by appealing to the people's needs.
What you get out of debating is not the same as everyone else. For online debates, such as this one, I would have to agree that people generally debate to learn and challenge their own beliefs. The debating strategy you are using here is valid because this is a friendly debate. If you're trying to fix a problem with your debating, then you can't simply jab holes in their theories.
So are you saying it's acceptable to ignore reality in favor of a comforting fantasy to the point you think that fantasy is reality?
Religion, fantasy? You are using atheist justifications to support your points. But for the sake of argument...
Yes, as long as those people aren't causing problems. Please don't say that this does cause problems, I know that. That is why I'm debating here, to tell you there are better ways to fix these problems than persuading them of God's non existence.
Again you appear to be trying to make the claim that if you leave religion alone it will leave you alone.
Not once have I made such a point. I claim that you must use religion to change radical views of theists. You must use their beliefs against them, but in such subtle way that they don't understand what you're trying to do. They will start supporting views they previously fought without noticing it.
It goes far deeper then even those door to door Bible thumpers who like to knock on my door just as I'm waking up. It effects the politics and laws I have to live under, it fights to pollute the education of our schools, it's robbing it's members of free thinking worst of all the kids, it has made large attempts to restrict scientific breakthroughs, there are a number of states where someone who does not believe in this fantasy can't hold a political office... Just to name a few.
You can challenge these problems without converting everyone to atheism.
When we are talking about a specific God/s it can most defiantly can be an error. We can look at the evidence of the claims of that God and examine how it matches to reality. If it doesn't match then we can say such a belief is in error.
What good are facts if your opponent doesn't recognize them as justifiable?
How you debate depends on the situation. Persuading theists that God doesn't exist is seldom a working strategy if your goal is to fix a problem they are causing. If they aren't causing any problems and you are simply challenging their views, go ahead and poke holes in their theories, just respect them and back off when they say they are done debating and let them live their life without constantly reminding them that they are wrong.
http://www.innovationgame.com/general/religion.htm
Kinda goes more in depth of what alot of people are saying.
Please though guys. I don't want to hear if your atheist, or chrstian, or even why.
I just want to know, what comes from dissproving religion (shouldn't have used "god" to specific) what your veiws are. would you be fine, if religion was kept out of government? but then in turn, should science be kept out of the public as well?
would you be fine, if religion was kept out of government? but then in turn, should science be kept out of the public as well?
Religion should be kept out of government, but that is because there are many different religions and nobody can agree on just one. Science, on the other hand, is global. Everyone can agree, for the most part, on science with data behind it.
You must be logged in to post a reply!