Forums → WEPR → Disproving god

If God does exist then we could possible prove it. However if there is no God then there will be nothing to find.

yes... but you have to know that it took a couple hundred thousand years to prove the concept of gravity.

Sure atheists believe in things, just not deities.

A-Theist <- yes.. the act of not believing in a god is believing in no god.

The major problem I'm seeing with your parent analogy is we can see our parents and independently verify they exist. Now if you had a parent who was never around but you were just told they exist and further evidence suggested that such a relative wasn't even the most likely way you could have been conceived, then yeah you could convince someone to stop believing in that parent.

Faith is belief without proof, so what your saying here makes about as much sense as all those derps you seem to like typing.

you are talking about faith in general. faith should come from your own convictions... even you'd have to assume that someone create that person. 2 people got together and birthed that person. like a pile of materials used to build a house. if you leave it there for ages. it's still going to be a pile of stuff. there is no structure. just like you need a builder for a house. something just happened and formed humans. whether we came from sea polyps or whatever. science can try to explain it, but regardless nobody knows what happened 4.3 billions years ago. science can only speculate. i mean only recently did we find out that water doesn't diffuse through the phospholipid wall. Only recently have we discovered aquaporin, which is a protein channel that selectively allows water through. science isn't all "facts" for all we know. since science is just data.

You can use logic to make the determine one's belief.

>walkthrough
>game
can't have a walkthrough without a game.

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?

Few things wrong with this.

Any person logical enough to be a pantheist, atheist and the like (or simply agnostic) would be logical enough to understand that aggressively debating this topic wouldn't help a thing.

Also, this would be nulified by religious fanatics who even disobey the commandments in order to 'spread the word'.
e.g Terrorists

Another problem with this is that the Bible itself contradicts itself. Itself says that Christians themselves can enslave people and beat them not to death, but near it and yet, isn't one of the morals / commandments "Be kind to Thy Neighbour" or some sort?


Also, my last point is (and I mean this in a slightly comedic fashion) why would we want to believe in God when he is such a d!ck to people? I mean... honestly. Would you want to believe in someone who automatically suggests that you believe in him despite such a lack of proof and also set up an elaborate scheme that could prove something else?

Not only that but he expects you to make him the biggest part of your life. Arrogant much?
We didn't ASK to be made, God.

Taking their religious congregation out is like them bible thumping us. Not right.

Too true. One of the things which I feel non-religious people have which some religious people lack is integrity.
I.e what's the point of fighting against something if you're going to give up everything (such as moral capacity) you are trying to protect in the process?
Simply put, becoming as bad as the enemy.

Oh, and anyone of any religion out there. I don't care what you say on this. But whether or not your morals are right or wrong, they are perceived wrong and are not infact your morals. Due to the lack of reason that streams throughout the Bible there is a slight chance you perceive these morals as right for something you actually think, and not something that God has handed out for you.

So even if there are non-religious people whom may have better or worse morals, who is it that is right to do so?

I go with non-religious. Especially since most religious people are wrong (or perceive so wrongly) anyway.

In history almost every single problem with out world has stemmed from "My god is better than yours"

I dare say that the people involved (since the vast majority of our history was clouded only in religion - that was, until Darwin came) deserve it.


Don't get me wrong. I'd be fine with Religious people, but when you can't trust their intentions when it comes to forcefully converting / killing / disposing of you. Would you really want to be with them?

- H

always is under the threat of become wicked himself

Threat yes.
Reason, yes.
Perspective, yes.

Oh, and this is the funny part. A non-religious person would have the bottom 2 more than a religious one. If they can maintain perspective, and reason, then they will overcome the wickedness and evil fairly easily.
Not only that, but it's possible they'd be intelligent enough to dedicate themself to destroy this wickedness and evil (which sounds like a bad guy in a childrens book) which in turn would aid them to maintain any sanity they once had.
We wouldn't go into such a thing, anyway, that argument is irrelevant.

I'm saying that there are some nuggets of truth embedded in there.

Sorry for the rant.
Haha, yes, the Bible is truthful in some things (or w/e religion you follow )

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.

Sadly, this may happen.
But, by who would this happen by?
I'm not trying to say anything but I cannot see an agnostic, or atheist / pantheist being harmed so much by this undertaking.

However, the sense of Justice and Morality would not be lost, in any case. Unless you are implying that the religious people would be retards and forget everything their God taught them after it appears he has been vapourized by lazarzzzz! Or simply by law.

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?

Nature's powerful y'know.
Crystals aren't alive (as far as I'm aware) but they can go. Hell. Maybe we're derived from them.

You seem to be arguing more against my methodology rather then my thinking.

I'll back you up with this.
The point is disproving God. But the title is quite misleading since he, she, or it has not been properly proven yet. It's (for the most part) the same argument, however it relies on religious people to prove it first. Countering something is exactly what we should do.

sure the relapced but every addict does and the church helped them through it.

A good deed, don't get me wrong. But who will the addict rely on after so?
The lesser of two evils (in my honest opinion) is converting the addict to a religion. However back when he was an addict he was likely able to make choices (and big ones sometimes) by himself.
I really don't have a point for this.

I wonder how much would be left if we did go through and remove all the negative parts.

Only blatant morales.

I used to think to myself for HOURS (remember this was when I was 6-7 and I would be freakin' energetic as hell) about morales so I would know that anything and everything I done is right (or neutral, which is, basically, right). It was, for the most part, zero-tolerance.
Now. I am a forgiving kid who thinks for himself and always thinks through things logically, reasonably, tolerantly, patiently, and morally.
And arrogantly in this sentence. To be quite honest. It's just (and I can relate to you on this part) a huge part of my life, and since I perceived all of them by myself, I can often consider myself a better person than many (much of my family included) people I currently know.

sorry for making you read all that.

No problem.
You basically admitted that Satan is cool enough to let us do what we want (kill eachother) in the name of God (their abusive father) whilst he's babysitting?
Abusive in the way that he lets his evil twin brother do it for so long. But not so abusive that he would cloud our thoughts (for the most part) that he is always watching, and etc.

satan challenged gods right to rule, saying the he was a bad ruler. god, hearing this, let satan show him how HE would rule the world and to his people. so the real controller of this world is satan, while people constantly blame god for all the suffering for the world today.

So those two are playing Poker whilst God has the perfect card?
He's just holding it back a wee bit.

The threat of death from eating the fruit proved to be false.

Isn't one of the commandments NOT to lie?
HypoGod.

God doesn't show himself is because it will mess with our free will and he loves us to much to take that away.

Yeah. I got the choice to either believe in God blindly, and live with sweet naked angel chicks once I happily die. Or I can choose to wear a red bandana, take a minigun and spray bullets at all the Christians only to have the same done to me, except 1,000,000x worse for 1,000,000x longer.

Some choice.
Funny thing is, I'm exaggerating the bad part. If I don't do something as simple as believe in God then that will happen anyways.

therefore, the teacher has let the rebels show him how they would work out the problem. then, when the teacher proves the rebels wrong, the other students will understand why, in future, he will take other rebels out of the class.

No because being rebellious is "freakin' awesome" at this age. You just keep explaining it a couple times a day. If someone pushes it, then you take the Rambo-Rebels with the bad-girls out of the class.
Or you could just toss them out of the school since they're not worth the hassle anyway.
Stupid ******s.

A better example would be if an engineer built an android to be rebellious and such then had trouble with it latter. Its all his fault for building it that way.

Except God could just wipe us out with his breath.
I don't know the point of my argument, but honestly, I don't know the point of yours.

god creating mankind just to be slaves is a poor reason for god to create anything.

The Bible allows slavery, y'know.
Whether or not God can see everything or do everything whenver he wants, I doubt his APM exceeds this:
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/07/excellence-of-execution-video-of-starcraft-mastery.ars

Yes, that's a joke.
Point is: Slaves can cut him some slack - especially since he did rest after making them.

a couple of rebellious students think that the teachers way of teaching is wrong.

Not rebellious.
Hell, curious.
I am "rebellious" in class, why? Because it's truthful.
First, my English teacher had misspelled the word "Heroes" wrong, me and my brother-in-law had gladly decided to correct her with a DICTIONARY after being attempted to be shouted down at by both the teacher and the rest of the class.
After we corrected her, she sent me on an 'errand' and when I came back, she questioned me for doing it.
I didn't answer. I had the perfect reason - the kids should know the truth (as most teachers reasons for these jobs is because they love kids etc) but I didn't. Because she is a unreasonable and dealt with the situation badly.
If teachers didn't act so arrogant (like me) and decided to be modest, wouldn't it set a better example?

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.

True.
For once, that's all I got to say.

- H

yes... but you have to know that it took a couple hundred thousand years to prove the concept of gravity.

What does that have to do with anything?

A-Theist <- yes.. the act of not believing in a god is believing in no god.

Yeah I know but you said "no thing" which is in error.

you are talking about faith in general. faith should come from your own convictions.

I really don't see it mattering where it come from, I still see it as problematic to rely on.

even you'd have to assume that someone create that person. 2 people got together and birthed that person. like a pile of materials used to build a house. if you leave it there for ages. it's still going to be a pile of stuff. there is no structure. just like you need a builder for a house. something just happened and formed humans.

No there not alike at all. As life has properties inanimate objects do not.

whether we came from sea polyps or whatever. science can try to explain it, but regardless nobody knows what happened 4.3 billions years ago. science can only speculate.

No it's not just speculation it's observation, and testing.

i mean only recently did we find out that water doesn't diffuse through the phospholipid wall. Only recently have we discovered aquaporin, which is a protein channel that selectively allows water through.

Again this really has no point to it.

science isn't all "facts" for all we know. since science is just data.

Science is a tool that we can use to determine and explain the facts. So far it's proven to be a rather effective one.

>walkthrough
>game
can't have a walkthrough without a game.

So your saying someone couldn't make up a fake walkthrough or write a walk through for a game but never make the actual game?

Except God could just wipe us out with his breath.
I don't know the point of my argument, but honestly, I don't know the point of yours.

Basically he's saying God intentionally built a flaw into the system so it wouldn't properly do what he wants, then get's mad because the system doesn't properly do what he wants.

Maybe a visual display will help explain. (some language)
Atheist Comedy - The Meaning of Life

it took a couple hundred thousand years to prove the concept of gravity.

I dont think people have been looking into it for that long tbh.

science isn't all "facts" for all we know. since science is just data.

And religion IS?

2 people got together and birthed that person. like a pile of materials used to build a house. if you leave it there for ages. it's still going to be a pile of stuff. there is no structure. just like you need a builder for a house. something just happened and formed humans. whether we came from sea polyps or whatever. science can try to explain it, but regardless nobody knows what happened 4.3 billions years ago. science can only speculate.

That argument has been refuted in a myriad of ways. If you dropped the materials there for eternity then at least once it would form into what WE recognise as a house. And once is all it took.

Also science comes up with some pretty good answers. Religion doesnt. Religion fills in gaping holes of knowledge with "sky daddy" theology and when science fills the gaping holes in with something more concrete religion seems to forget all its sins and acts as if the science was right all along, but god still exists with no evidence.

So I will continue to speculate... its better than chosen ignorance.