Forums → WEPR → Disproving god
| 352 | 61506 |
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
But all science is guesses. So if you take one guesse out of government, you should also take science out of government.
But all science is guesses.
Guesses that can be tested.
Guesses that HAVE been tested.
Guesses that are true, since it's obvious it will happen at a constant.
For instance: Gravity is a theory, but it can be tested. Jump in the air, or drop something. See it falling? That there be gravity.
Basically meaning, these "guesses" are fact due to them being tested and actually plausible.
For instance, let's say that I wrote the biridlium nipto (HOLY SH*T).
Let's say that it was also incredibly vague.
Now then, let's say some form of holocaust happened between now and 1000 years in the future.
The bible no longer exists, but someone somehow found my incredibly old book. I make it look like it's a passage from god.
Does that mean I'm right?
This is how I've always viewed holy texts. Just so you know.
Religion as it were is kept out of religion or at least most sciences. There have been many christians or at least those who believe in a supreme being have been fired from their jobs for doing so, because some believe that science and religion cannot go together. However, if religion is taken out of government, then the world would fall to chaos. Laws would be broken, the sense of justice and morality would be lost.
Thoad, science is seldom far off form being wrong. The whole marijuana issue, there is science showing that it isn't that harmful. Maybe we missed something, but chances are we didn't. With science, we can get marijuana legalized as well as a decrease in crimes and prison inmates.
Guesses that HAVE been tested.
Guesses that are true, since it's obvious it will happen at a constant.
So we've tested and made life from gases then?
So we've tested and made life from gases then?
Living things from non-living things, yes. WE didn't make life from gasses, if that's what the post really says. However, the notion that life was made from non-living things is about an inch short from being acceptable. It just needs more.
Well until you make life from gasses, how is the public supposed to believe that all life on earth was created from said gasses and combustion? Just believe it? Just because it seems like that is most likely what happened?
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 don't want to talk about it then they don't have to reply to me. They don't even have to read what I type (would prefer if they do). I'm on a forum in a thread set up to discus these things.
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,
If they didn't want there views placed out in the open for debate then what are they doing posting it in the first place? No less a place set up just for that.
Usually at this point it's more for a third party to pick up and run with if they so desire.
So far, I pointed out flaws in your thinking. Each time I pointed out a flaw, you countered it with something.
You seem to be arguing more against my methodology rather then my thinking.
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.
We can also ask how it's wrong and work from there.
This is not a fact, this is your opinion.
Perhaps, but it sure does help alleviate the "debating is like running int he special Olympics" issue. If your in it just to change another's mind your not going to get much out of it.
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.
I thought it was because they are mostly dishonest and usually cared more about being popular and having power then actually tackling any real issues.
If you're trying to fix a problem with your debating, then you can't simply jab holes in their theories.
I tried debating without jabbing holes in others theories and I didn't really get much out of it. This isn't something that is limited to just religion, do it to everything. "Question everything" (I can't remember who's quote that is right now)
Religion, fantasy? You are using atheist justifications to support your points.
How is it not?
Yes, as long as those people aren't causing problems. Please don't say that this does cause problems, I know that.
I'm not really understanding you here. Don't argue that something is causing problems, because you know it is, when it's not?
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.
I'm going to point out the flaws here just as I would point out a flaw in someone saying 2+2=5.
Not once have I made such a point.
It appeared you had with statements like this.
"If the problem is, as you say, people forcing their religious views on you, then there is an easy solution. If someone asks you to believe in God, simply say "no thanks." Most people out there will drop the topic when you politely say "no.""
I'm not going to pretend to think and believe things that I don't just to get on there good side so I can later try and change there minds to what I really believe. I can look at what is being presented and postulate on what I think of it.
You can challenge these problems without converting everyone to atheism.
Never said I was trying to do that.
What good are facts if your opponent doesn't recognize them as justifiable?
It wouldn't be a fact if it wasn't justified. So this would be on them.
Maybe I'll get to some of these other posts later on.
Well until you make life from gasses, how is the public supposed to believe that all life on earth was created from said gasses and combustion? Just believe it? Just because it seems like that is most likely what happened?
We didn't physically create life. However, we did studies to show how life was created. When you say make life from gasses, you are implying that it "oof" turns into life. Gasses of elements and compounds, which gradually turns into strands of DNA, takes a lot of time to do. Actually turning the DNA into life by human hands is unreachable right now. Either that, or I haven't read up on any successful reads.
1. Best way to start is looking at ancient earth 4.7 billion years ago. Many different compounds were around back then, such as hydrogen cyanide and methane gas. DNA is made from only 4 different types of Nucleotides, so where did that come from? How in the world did they come to be in this universe?
Here's this: In 1964 a brilliant researcher called Wan Oro put methane and the cyanide to boil in a solution under the perfect conditions that were in ancient earth back then. Afterwards, the solution produced adenine, one of the four types of nucleotide bases. To make a full nucleotide, it needs to gain a sugar called Ribose and a group of phosphates. How in the world did the ribose and phosphate group get formed and get attached to that nucleotide?
2. From the nucleotide to the polynucleotide
Well, once the nucleotide was formed, they needed to form together in chains called polynucleotides. In the 1980s, researchers found that a clay, called "montmorillonite", a very abundant resource in ancient earth, was a perfect catalyst for this process of "chaining".
3. Now we are going to make RNA!
Some of these copies of the polynucleotides with ribose inside, or RNA (ribonucleic acid) are able to make copies of themselves...huh. Of course the copies aren't as perfect, but again, some copies are more adapted than the other copies to survive in the hot, dense planet earth used to be. So these molecules that did survive would replicate and pass on their traits, while those that aren't so great at surviving would just break apart into regular compounds of methane and cyanide.
4. Making protocells! WHOO!
As RNA replicated, they shared their surroundings with other chemicals around them. Some chemicals, called "lipids" like to clump together to form circular bodies called micelles. RNA molecules that attracted the micelles found themselves protected inside them. Because they were protected, they better survived than those that weren't. From there, they replicated successfully, but with the entire protocell with them. There, you have the first primitive cellular structure.
5. Then from the span of hundreds of millions of years later, RNA grew more complex from replicating and passing on better traits. The single strand formed to create a double-strand molecule, and the more successful DNA molecule evolved. One thing however: DNA needs proteins to replicate. Proteins are made from amino acids or the building blocks of life, so how/where in the world did the amino acids get into the picture?
6. formation of amino acids
a number of experiments with the montmorillonite not only produced amino acids, but long chains of them that are called "olypeptides". It turns out that this long-difficult name clay stuff is a natural breeding ground for all these complex chemicals. So there you have it. RNA, DNA, what made it, and what made amino acids, non-living chemicals that in turn made living organisms and the process in which these chemicals came to be.
There, I have shown you how the fundamental blocks of life were created by non-living things. However, this isn't much to do with disproving god, so it's pretty much an off-topic post XD
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.
It's no more harsh then I would put anything else through.
I think definition 4-a of thefreedictionary best describes what I'm saying.
"4.
a. Fiction characterized by highly fanciful or supernatural elements."
or as wiki puts it.
Fantasy is a genre that uses magic and other supernatural forms as a primary element of plot, theme, and/or setting.
Based on the events said to have happened from our only source telling us this being exists, it does appear to be the work of fiction and it most definitely contains supernatural elements.
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.
So have I. I'm not denying there aren't some positive effects, though I don't think religion is necessary to achieve this. So we could achieve the same goals without the negative baggage that comes with religion.
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
Have you read the whole Bible? Did you know while it's the most sold book it's also the least read.
He does have a point. They aren't called the 10 Suggestions, they're Commandments telling you to follow this and requires you ask for forgiveness not just if you disobey those commandments but for just being human. (note: The "forgiveness for being human" comes from a man training to be a pastor but turned atheist after reading the Bible)
For better clarification on all those for this topic, what is it, exactly, about God that causes you to not believe in Him?
Overall no reliable evidence has ever been presented. Getting down to which god the other reasons become a bit more muddied. But we can look at the specific claims of that deity and determine if
1. Does it make any logical sense?
2. Was this being/s needed to begin with?
There is the deistic view where god made everything then left it all alone. This idea of god is about as good as not having any god at all. Ultimately this only adds another step to the equation rather then simplify things.
There are also those who place the label of god on something already defined. Of course this is not god this is just someone trying to label something as god but if we already call it X then there is no need to call it god.
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.
I wonder how much would be left if we did go through and remove all the negative parts.
So this thread is just about Disproving God, while others try to prove it? Right...
I think the question is why we try to disprove God while others try to prove... You know, this almost sounds obvious when put that way.
But all science is guesses.
It's not just guessing. It's testing and comparing to facts to be sure that what is being presented is accurate. Even the "guess" itself is often based on previous knowledge so you could say it's more of an "educated guess".
However, if religion is taken out of government, then the world would fall to chaos. Laws would be broken, the sense of justice and morality would be lost.
Please explain, exactly how does this work?
I think I'm done debating about this for a while. We took our route and now we're just going 'round and 'round in circles.
It was good debating with you. I may come back later and debate some more, I just need a break right now
However, if religion is taken out of government, then the world would fall to chaos. Laws would be broken, the sense of justice and morality would be lost.
He's taking how religion shaped modern law and order out of bounds. Yes, much of the world's modern rules and regulations has been straight outta religion. Actually, if you read about how governments form, one of the greatest ways has been from religious dominance. Others include tribal expansion, monarchies, etc., but religious dominance is up there.
However, just because we take it out now doesn't mean anarchy, doom, and discord is going to ensue. We still have government itself, which keeps order and prevents chaos. Justice has many concepts, which is hard to define in a general way. How it's going down now is equal justice for all peoples. Race, sex, sexuality, stuff like that. Religion restricted this process from eventually becoming a reality. It still is now. It also is the main culprit for how our morals and ethics are bound right now. The majority of us still claim homosexuality as being "immoral", because of ancient ways that told us that it was. It shouldn't be now.
So if we took religion out of government (which sheesh, I hope it is now because of this 1st amendment we keep pulling out), nothing would be changing, except a lot of pissy religious folk and jobless priests.
Afterwards, the solution produced adenine, one of the four types of nucleotide bases. To make a full nucleotide, it needs to gain a sugar called Ribose and a group of phosphates. How in the world did the ribose and phosphate group get formed and get attached to that nucleotide?
Please, do tell, how did adenine achieve possession of a phosphate and a ribose sugar? Further more, if all Mr. Oro found was adenine, then where did guanine, thymine, and cytosine originate from? The other gasses? By all means, what gasses would those be? Along with that, care to explain which gasses montmorillonite originated from?
Some of these copies of the polynucleotides with ribose inside, or RNA (ribonucleic acid) are able to make copies of themselves.
And how is this possible with out DNA as a template? Granted, there are some RNA dependent RNA polymerases, but then the issue arises, if the cell as we know it depends on DNA to replicate, and DNA to grow, how did single cells survive during the early stages of life?
If the cell just happened to be able to survive without DNA, or even hypothetically had DNA during the time in dispute, how is it then that the process of replicating/splitting of prokaryotic cells hasn't evolved at all? Surely you jest if you believe that the very first prokaryotic cells had a Golgi apparatus that even knew how to help with the division of cells, let alone participate in cytokinesis! How then did the cells divide and ultimately, 'evolve' if every thing that we have today is an 'evolution' of everything back then? After all, everything had to have evolved shouldn't it?
Thirdly, how is it, that through all the extreme minor probabilities and slight mutations that doesn't kill a cell, we have so many species of plants, animals, and races of man?
Lastly, what gave the prokaryotic cells the urge and the drive to divide? What gave the DNA a reason to replicate when there were no proteins, no amino acids, and no Golgi apparatuses to provide a temporary cell wall during cytokinesis? What caused the gasses in the Big Bang to create something combustible without creating a black hole from the escape velocity of the materials and particles traveling at the speed of light, when we know today that material traveling less than that from stars going supernova can create a black holes? And how was it so, that in the big bang, only a few gasses combined together created every known element and some how created enough of it for prokaryotic cells to grow into what we have today?
Finally, where did all those electrons and neutrons and protons come from that made those combustible gasses? I know my answer. What's yours?
You must be logged in to post a reply!