Forums → WEPR → Disproving god
| 352 | 61529 |
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
god specifically told them not to eat from that tree. it was an order from god. adam and eve listend to god because he created them and they that he was a good person, therefore not giving them bad instructions. but dont forget that satan told them to eat from the tree, and they listened to satan through free will. if satan hadnt tried to tell them to eat from the tree then adam and eve would not have done so.
He trembles in our presence.
Thinks hes some kind of hard ***, but he wont back it up lol.
Possible but this puts his other interactions with us into question.
let us consider an illustration.
a teacher is in class, explaining how to work out an answer to a difficult problem. a couple of rebellious students think that the teachers way of teaching is wrong. what should the teacher do?
If we are to say God is some sort of teacher of ours, he's a pretty poor one.
A good teacher would welcome and encourage his students to think for themselves. he would welcome new perspectives to answering the problem at hand. God tries to discourage and punishes such actions.
A good teacher would want his students to surpass him. When ever we began to meet or surpass God in the Bible, he would impede our ability to do so.
A teacher wants their students to gain knowledge, God wanted to keep us from knowledge.
i wouldnt say that i approve of god 100%, but the bible does make it very convincing.
How does the Bible make it convincing?
god specifically told them not to eat from that tree. it was an order from god. adam and eve listend to god because he created them and they that he was a good person, therefore not giving them bad instructions.
So what if he gave them an order not to? They wouldn't know listening to his order would be the right thing to do. God being good or not would have no meaning to Adam and Eve since they would have no knowledge of such a concept until after eating the fruit.
but dont forget that satan told them to eat from the tree, and they listened to satan through free will. if satan hadnt tried to tell them to eat from the tree then adam and eve would not have done so.
Again they wouldn't know who would be the right or wrong one to listen to since they have no concept of right and wrong.
Though there is one major problem with this story, in that gaining knowledge is treated as a bad thing and remaining ignorant is treated as the correct path.
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?
You cannot prove that God doesn't exist. You cannot prove a negative. However we can say that there is no evidence, which there isn't, and as such an assertion that God DOES exist is fallacious and illogical.
The purpose of illustrating this point is to remove the influence of religion from laws and government. When people are making decisions based on their belief in the supernatural they invariably ignore the facts, and institute laws based on their personal beliefs which are detrimental and/or discriminatory toward those who do not share their beliefs. This is tantamount to religious discrimination.
But Have any of you heard of Pascals wager?
Yes, I'm quite familiar with Pascal's wager, and it isn't about morals at all, as you claim. He simply states that if you live life as if there were a God then if there is you are safe, and if you live as if there isn't, and there is, then you are basically screwed. He's arguing from a point of 'better safe than sorry'. That's all.
And since you want to point out morals, let's look at some 'moral' statistics.
~83% of inmates in the US are Christian
~0.4% of inmates in the US are atheists
~69% of abortions in the US are for Christian women
~24% of abortions in the US are for non-religious women
~34% of Non-denominational Christians have been divorced
~29% of Baptists have been divorced
~25% of Protestants have been divorced
~24% of Mormons have been divorced
~21% of Catholics have been divorced
~21% of non-religious/atheists have been divorced
Looks like Christians show no more personal morals than anyone else, and in many cases are in fact less moral, even by their own standards, than those who are not religious/atheist.
I'm sick of people claiming that 'religion gives you morals'. That's just a bunch of bullcrap. Religion promotes moral behavior, but it does not show in any way that those who are religious are more moral than those who are not, and in fact many are less moral in many areas.
Let me ask this: Why does religion demand that you be moral, when all you have to do is telepathically ask God to forgive you and everything is better? It doesn't, it provides people an easy way out when they do something bad.
I would like you to go read the ten commandments, and the other moral wrongs in the bible. How are ANY of them bad?
Are we looking at the original 10 Commandments, or the revised version? With the revised version I wouldn't say any of them are 'bad' commandments, but they do seem a bit frivolous, and they are even broken many times in the Bible by those who are espoused as 'holy' people.
Why does it matter if you beilve in god? And what do you lose by beilveing in him?
It doesn't matter if you believe in a deity. What does matter is when that belief begins to influence everyone, and when that belief forces you to blind yourself to what is real. By believing in something which has no evidence you are shutting your mind off to rational thought and reducing your ability to see things for what they are instead of what you would like them to be.
Much as people eventually must give up their belief in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, so, too, must we eventually give up our beliefs in other fictional characters, no matter how much of a fuzzy feeling we get from that belief.
but dont forget that satan told them to eat from the tree, and they listened to satan through free will.
Its actually quite possible that the snake refers to an older God from an earlier religion. I didn't pay the strictest attention to it but thats what they said.
Yes, I'm quite familiar with Pascal's wager, and it isn't about morals at all, as you claim. He simply states that if you live life as if there were a God then if there is you are safe, and if you live as if there isn't, and there is, then you are basically screwed. He's arguing from a point of 'better safe than sorry'. That's all.
I'm not a fan of Pascal's wager. He wagers that God is, or is not. But he doesn't take into account that there is more then just one God to pick from. With thousands of gods to pick from, this changes the equation significantly. Further more there is the question of what the right god wants. So even if you pick the right god your beliefs of that god might be wrong. This option again can go into the tens of thousands. Finally there is the possibility that non of the current god options are correct.
As such the odds are no longer 50/50 because even if you believe you still have a good chance of getting it wrong.
no, he gave them free will. adam and eve had the choice to do whatever they wanted. they werent just robotic worker ants, and if they were, god creating mankind just to be slaves is a poor reason for god to create anything.
Ha, free will, yeah.. knowing the nature of mankind, his own creation, god knew that they would eat the fruit, since he's supposed to be omniscient. In fact he put them to temptation himself; why else putting a forbidden tree in the very reach of them while telling them not to eat it? What's the sense to this? He manipulated them is the reason.
I'm not a fan of Pascal's Wager either, and you are right about there being multiple gods and multiple interpretations of what people think each god wants from us. However I believe that Pascal's Wager was intended toward a christian audience, as that was really the only religion he was familiar with.
Even if we work off of that, though, the odds are still less than exact 50/50 since most christians can't agree on exactly what it is god wants from them because their guide book (the bible) is ambiguous and contradictory. Either way, I prefer to live my life as I live it now. And honestly, if there is a god, I'm sure he'd rather be surrounded by intelligent, hard working people who did the best they could no matter what, as opposed to a bunch of mindless sheep who just want to spend eternity grovelling at his feet.
Seriously, how conceited can one be to think that a being that has the power to create the entire universe actually gives two shits if a pissant like one of us grovels to it? Get real.
Humans will usually follow something blindly, no matter how insignificant if they believe it will give them a purpose in life.most religion stems from fear of the unknown and it has been this way since humanity began.Almost every religious belief can be disproved by science and logic. most people who say that they only want to hear facts and truth are hypocrites as about oh, 100% of earths human population believes in something easily disproved by science.I believe that a world where we are all responsible for the planet we live in would be a better world for us all. being content is the greatest thing a person can ever achieve. peace out y'all!
In fact he put them to temptation himself; why else putting a forbidden tree in the very reach of them while telling them not to eat it? What's the sense to this? He manipulated them is the reason.
I'm going to put a small child in a room with easy access to a loaded hand gun. I will further put another child in the room who will try and get the first child to pick up and and play with the hand gun. I will of course tell the small child not to touch the hang gun, but it won't be my fault if the small child still picks the gun up and shoot himself or another person.
Some people are angry at God, so say that they don't believe
Lol
You cannot be mad at something that doesn't exist
Some people are angry at God, so say that they don't believe
Most atheists disbelieve in God do to the lack of evidence, not because they are angry.
You cannot be mad at something that doesn't exist
I've found myself getting mad at fiction characters on tv, so yes you can be mad at something that doesn't exist.
MageGrayWolf
You just contradicted yourself
fictional characters are real on television. If they weren't real, you wouldn't see them
You cannot prove whether God exists or not. But you can ask whether the existence or nonexistence of God is more consistent with your experience. It is up to each of us to reach our own conclusion, but for many of us it is and can make a profound and enriching difference to our lives.
I'm on Mages side here - you can get mad at something that doesn't exist - let's take an abstract concept... Justice? maybe. 'that isn't just' or 'How the hell is that fair!' - yet justice is not real in any physical sense.
You must be logged in to post a reply!