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?
Women also can get angry. One example is common. Its called PMS. look it up
Ha. That made me laugh. I think that religion is a good thing for some people. For some people, their belief in God is the only thing they have. I, however, have my own belief. I don't need a god to feel good about myself.
There might be a god, Clary, and there might not, but I don't think it matters. Either way, we're still on our own.
That's a little rich coming from a Christian. Who does one prove/disprove Atheism? It isn't a religion? It is merely the absence of religion. So before you start harping on about proving a system that does not support thiestic beliefs, I suggest you PROVE that your religion is correct, without using the bible.
Apparently not according to the Bible. Thought the murder part it does say it's wrong but then goes on giving lists of what people should be killed for and has God telling "his people" to go off and slaughter cities.
Yes, but there also is nothing that can PROVE "astafanarianism."
There is nothing proving the Abrahamic God either.
Okay disapprove atheism and I will convert, its very easy to make something no one can dissprove. e.g the flying spaghetti monster.
Yes, but there also is nothing that can PROVE "astafanarianism."
That's a little rich coming from a Christian. Who does one prove/disprove Atheism? It isn't a religion? It is merely the absence of religion. So before you start harping on about proving a system that does not support thiestic beliefs, I suggest you PROVE that your religion is correct, without using the bible.
The only way to disprove atheism is to prove your religion. You are the one that has to give proofs since you're the one that makes the assertions. So do what wolf said, and I'll also be willing to reconsider my position.
The only way to disprove atheism is to prove your religion.
That is exactly what I am trying to do.
That's a little rich coming from a Christian. Who does one prove/disprove Atheism? It isn't a religion? It is merely the absence of religion. So before you start harping on about proving a system that does not support thiestic beliefs, I suggest you PROVE that your religion is correct, without using the bible.
The way to disprove a negative is to prove the positive.
Now, how do you think emotions came to be? There can be no way a giant explosion could have caused a massive chain reaction, resulting in everything around us. Isn't it more reasonable that there is a designer?
Now, how do you think emotions came to be? There can be no way a giant explosion could have caused a massive chain reaction, resulting in everything around us. Isn't it more reasonable that there is a designer?
First, it's an expansion, not explosion. Second, you don't seem to understand that things didn't just came to be. They didn't exist at the beginning, and developed; the time span is so inimaginably big that everything could have happened until now, just by natural processes.
OK, lets take the big bang theory. It says that there was nothing, then there was a sudden expansion of matter that had infinite density. From then on, everything came into being.
Place a piece of paper in a void. If we wait long enough, do you thing that we will eventually get a beautifull painting? Couldn't it be more reasonable that someone "took up the brush"?
OK, lets take the big bang theory. It says that there was nothing, then there was a sudden expansion of matter that had infinite density. From then on, everything came into being.
That's not at all what it says. I suggest you do some research before you make assertions about things you obviously do not understand.
Um, I don't know the Big Bang theory literally, but I think it should be left open what was before. There could have been something before, and not just nothing.
And yes, theoretically it could be possible that if you wait long enough, colour particles arrange on the paper so that it makes a painting. But entropy tells us that such processes, even if possible, are highly improbable. Our world didn't develop in such radical processes; it took much more single processes that were separately more probable and in total made what you see. Again, don't imagine it happening too quickly.
Now, how do you think emotions came to be? There can be no way a giant explosion could have caused a massive chain reaction, resulting in everything around us. Isn't it more reasonable that there is a designer?
Emotions have nothing in common with the big bang, so this isn't exactly much of an argument.
And yes, theoretically it could be possible that if you wait long enough, colour particles arrange on the paper so that it makes a painting. But entropy tells us that such processes, even if possible, are highly improbable. Our world didn't develop in such radical processes; it took much more single processes that were separately more probable and in total made what you see. Again, don't imagine it happening too quickly.
Ok, scratch that for a minute. Look at man. Our emotions. Our bodies. Is there any way that a pool of chemicals could eventually for such amazing designs?
Emotions have nothing in common with the big bang, so this isn't exactly much of an argument.
What I mean was that as a result, it would be nearly impossible, if not impossible, for random elements forming the human mind.
I believe in science so as radation shows all matter comes from one source and redshift shows the universe is expanding I think the big bang is quite likely. At some point someone could get more evidence that would make me change my views. The problem with religion is it allows for no change, it has been more then 2000 years from when Jesus was born. If there was evidence that showed anything has been discovered religious people are likly to reject it saying there ancient holy book knows better.
I believe in science so as radation shows all matter comes from one source and redshift shows the universe is expanding I think the big bang is quite likely. At some point someone could get more evidence that would make me change my views.
Ok, but where did this infinite-density material come from? Could it really have appeared from a void?
The problem with religion is it allows for no change, it has been more then 2000 years from when Jesus was born. If there was evidence that showed anything has been discovered religious people are likly to reject it saying there ancient holy book knows better.
Harry, if there was evidence, I wouldn't be a Christian. I have found no evidence whatsoever that God is false.
Ok, scratch that for a minute. Look at man. Our emotions. Our bodies. Is there any way that a pool of chemicals could eventually for such amazing designs?
Yes and no. It started with chemicals, but once again they didn't just spontaneously form humans. At the age of the first living cells nothing was pointing to such an evolution. Yet over time it happened. ...Have you ever heard of the saying Sh*t Happens?
And our bodies may be amazing (especially the brain) but they aren't perfect. It is not designed, it is adapted. Yes, the eye too.
