Is God real post your thoughts!

[assassin_696]

There is an inherent problem in using scripture to show the cruelty of the Bible because Christians who genuinely have read it more than some of us atheists insist that we're taking it out of context. But as warri0r said it's a complete non-sequiter when the Christians say that because until they do put it in the logical context it's just an argument from authority, a fallacy. So i'll counter that fallacy with one of my own. In the late 19th early 20th century the Catholic Church pushed for a new kind of theological stance, modernism, whereby the claims of the Bible were examined under close scrutiny and their literal truth and worth assessed. However this lead to so many of the Vatican scholars realising the absurdness of parts of the Bible that the Vatican had to completely ex-communicate many of the scholars and ban many of their books. There are leading scholars on both sides of the debate with far more knowledge about the Bible than any of us. I find the arguments from my side of the debate more convincing but don't have the time nor training to examine each of their claims, so I trust in the methods of rational historical analysis that have been applied and take their claims at face value. I'm less inclined to trust the claims of the scholars on the other side of the debate because there is a massive incentive for them to want to keep their faith, so their judgement might be clouded. It's a complex issue.

[user1991]

You do realise with that kind of rationalisation you can justify washing god's hands of absolutely anything, right?

 

[garden tool]-[garden tool]-hold on. You're criticizing (nearly) the exact same rationalization that has been used numerous times in this thread to "prove" God doesn't exist?

 

 

 

A Christian talking about reason, please, do not even start.

 

 

 

And atheist committing a complete hypocrisy? Madness!

 

 

 

Your religion is stupid, please stop, you're killing the species.

 

 

 

You have no debating value in your post whatsoever. You don't know [cabbage] about Christianity; you're categorizing over two dozen very varied sects into one base that did not even comprise early Christianity. Since I can't try to insult atheism, as you'll counter it with "You're a stupid hypocrite!", I'll just leave it at this.

 

 

 

No debating value..?

 

 

 

If faith is irrational, then it is rational to dismiss "faith-based claims" out of hand.

 

If faith is rational, then "faith-based claims" must be testable and/or sound -- but they are neither.

 

If faith is a-rational, then "faith-based claims" are inexplicable and thus cannot explain anything.

 

 

 

Right, there's the concept of faith gone right there. Every single other area of discourse in your ENTIRE life, you use reason and evidence.We don't start at a conclusion, and then work back to prove it. We look at the evidence, and then theorise as to what that evidence suggests. Gaps in our knowledge do NOT suggest a God. They are as much evidence for God as they are for an evil species of Ape-Alien hybrids that exist in a different dimension and are using alpha-beta-photon waves to stop us from understanding existence.

 

 

 

There are gaps in our understanding of the Universe, existence, and time. I'm not going to deny that. Everybody wants answers - but why must you pretend you already know them? 5,000 years ago people explained the setting of the Sun by saying that God took it into the sea in a giant canoe. To us, that seems ridiculous. But please, look a few thousand years into the future, or maybe a few million - it is extremely likely that they will look back upon us with pity at the relatively small amount of knowledge we have, and that their understanding will be well beyond ours, and they will have answers to questions that we haven't even asked.

 

 

 

Why must we explain everything we don't know with the idea of "God"? There isn't any reliable evidence for the existence of a God. I must emphasise that gaps in our knowledge, are not evidence for anything other than the fact that we don't know the answers to certain questions.

 

 

 

Atleast people who say that "scripture is evidence" are actually looking for evidence. As said previously, scripture isn't a reliable source for anything, when you consider how many times it has been edited/mistranslated, and even then, someone could have just pulled it out of their [wagon] in the first place. But, people who say that are actually using what they perceive to be evidence to back up their claims. Same goes for the people who use miracles to show you that God exists. Of course, the "evidence" is ridiculous when you take a closer look at it, but at least they're trying. They subscribe to the idea of using evidence to create a hypothesis, the fact that they're doing it incorrectly and with substantial bias is irrelevent. So called religious moderates don't even attempt to use evidence. They just say something like "I believe in God because it makes me feel good. I believe in God because there are no other explanations for certain answers." - such reasoning should be ridiculed by every rationally thinking person over the age of 5.

 

 

 

You can believe what you like, and that should be your right to do so. BUT, that doesn't mean I cannot criticise you for it. If you believed that all non-white people should be executed, I would ridicule you for that too. Im not relating that belief to Christianity, I am just arguing that claims based on "faith" or anything other than evidence should simply be discarded immediately.

 

 

 

I don't get how you can live your life in a world where reason is essential yet not apply the same thinking you do to EVERYTHING else to the topic of God. At times, I get angry arguing with theists, and thats because they just aren't looking at it rationally. There may be a God, but at the moment, there is no evidence to suggest that there is. Supply me with evidence of a God and I will convert IMMEDIATELY.

[Lenticular_J]

To be honest I still don't really understand what your gripe is.

 

 

 

I have picked up a bible, I've read through 75% of it, and honestly, I end up laughing at most of it,

 

People who talk (type) like this in a debate and expect to be taken seriously.

 

 

 

Right, there's the concept of faith gone right there.[other words I didn't have a response to] Supply me with evidence of a God and I will convert IMMEDIATELY.

 

You just proved you don't even understand the slightest bit about the concept of faith.

 

 

 

I'm sorry I've been quite short with you and your posts lately, True. You just act like atheism is some sort of magical pedestal of greatness and us theists should be scrabbling for a word of your wisdom. So, yeah, I apologize.

 

 

 

I find that everytime I get involved in a debate with a believer of any religion, they often tell me that I wouldn't understand scriptures/passages/stories because I've never read the bible/other holy text. I find this to be a somewhat rude assumption. In reality, I've read the bible. I've been to church over hundreds of times. I've had faith in a god before. I understand Christianity. I would sincerely like a well laid out argument which leaves me no doubt as to whether or not there is a god, without being told I wouldn't understand it. However, I think no such argument exists. If there is such an argument which cannot be discredited or disproven ,(and sadly, 60+ pages into this discussion there isn't) I would like to see it.

 

There's a reason you aren't taken particularly seriously when you speak of the Bible. 1. You haven't read the entire thing. 2. You're (apparently) terribly biased in your readings and interpretations of it. In my few translations of the Koran, many of the Islamic-only parts befuddle me completely. But, I wouldn't even try to bring up the Koran in a debate against a Muslim.

 

 

 

You can believe what you like, and that should be your right to do so. BUT, that doesn't mean I cannot criticise you for it.

 

It doesn't mean you have to, either. And there's a difference between criticizing and insulting. It isn't like I can respond either, what am I to say: "I lol'd when I heard about scientific method." ?

 

 

 

Also, edit: Tried to fix quotes. Sorry if anyone saw them all jacked up.

[NoMoreDead]

[hide=]

To be honest I still don't really understand what your gripe is.

 

 

 

I have picked up a bible, I've read through 75% of it, and honestly, I end up laughing at most of it,

 

People who talk (type) like this in a debate and expect to be taken seriously.

 

 

 

Right, there's the concept of faith gone right there.[other words I didn't have a response to] Supply me with evidence of a God and I will convert IMMEDIATELY.

 

You just proved you don't even understand the slightest bit about the concept of faith.

 

 

 

I'm sorry I've been quite short with you and your posts lately, True. You just act like atheism is some sort of magical pedestal of greatness and us theists should be scrabbling for a word of your wisdom. So, yeah, I apologize.

 

 

 

I find that everytime I get involved in a debate with a believer of any religion, they often tell me that I wouldn't understand scriptures/passages/stories because I've never read the bible/other holy text. I find this to be a somewhat rude assumption. In reality, I've read the bible. I've been to church over hundreds of times. I've had faith in a god before. I understand Christianity. I would sincerely like a well laid out argument which leaves me no doubt as to whether or not there is a god, without being told I wouldn't understand it. However, I think no such argument exists. If there is such an argument which cannot be discredited or disproven ,(and sadly, 60+ pages into this discussion there isn't) I would like to see it.

 

There's a reason you aren't taken particularly seriously when you speak of the Bible. 1. You haven't read the entire thing. 2. You're (apparently) terribly biased in your readings and interpretations of it. In my few translations of the Koran, many of the Islamic-only parts befuddle me completely. But, I wouldn't even try to bring up the Koran in a debate against a Muslim.

 

 

 

You can believe what you like, and that should be your right to do so. BUT, that doesn't mean I cannot criticise you for it.

 

It doesn't mean you have to, either. And there's a difference between criticizing and insulting. It isn't like I can respond either, what am I to say: "I lol'd when I heard about scientific method." ?

 

 

 

Also, edit: Tried to fix quotes. Sorry if anyone saw them all jacked up.

[/hide]

 

 

 

I do expect to be taken seriously. Every time some one brings up a bible passage I take it 100% seriously. I laugh at the book myself, sure, but if you take it something seriously and debate it with me, you better believe I'll be dead serious the whole way through (with the exception of comical flaws in nearly every argument for the bible).

 

 

 

Not reading the whole bible is NOT a means of discrediting someone. It is the burden of proof laid upon the believers that is yours to carry, and not the other way around. My knowledge of the bible could be nill, but I would still be able to carry out a well argued debate based on logical flaws alone. Reading 3/4ths of the book helps, sure, because I can more easily deconstruct arguments, but even if I didn't know a single word it wouldn't hurt my cause.

 

 

 

My interpretations of the bible weren't biased at the time I read them, which was before I denounced my faith in god. I had more faith than most, but sometimes you watch something happen and begin to think: "Why didn't god stop this?"

 

 

 

Again, I'm still waiting for an valid argument on the topic of god. There seems to be no proof coming from the side of the believers, simply because it is blind faith. There has never been a bullet proof argument for the idea of god, so I stand both unimpressed and unconvinced.

[Cup Lion]

Again, I'm still waiting for an valid argument on the topic of god. There seems to be no proof coming from the side of the believers, simply because it is blind faith. There has never been a bullet proof argument for the idea of god, so I stand both unimpressed and unconvinced.

 

Of course, the point of this thread is to impress and convince you personally that there is a God.

 

 

 

Every person has morals, which are standards of right behavior. Yet, where do these morals come from? How do we know what right behavior is? Its common sense that killing a person (not in self-defense) is wrong. But where does that common sense come from? It must come from a higher being, a diety, a god. An atheist could argue that this is not possible, since a god doesn't exist. Part of out morals come from our parents. Parents teach us the basics of morality when we are young. Now, if one's parents were atheists, where did their parents get their morals? If you trace it back far enough, you are bound to run into a generation in which your relatives did believe in a god, in this case, the true God (my opinion). Thus, their morals came from that God, and their parents.

 

 

 

However, lets say there is a tribe of completely isolated people who have never heard of a god. Where do they get their standards of right and wrong? Its called natural law. Natural law happens to be influenced by God, seeing as he created nature. Thus, they still get their morals from God.

 

 

 

So tell me, where do you get your morals? A god maybe?

[EdgedThesis]

Why would it matter, even if a God did exist?

 

 

 

Should I really be thankful to just have been created? Not really. I never asked to be created. Of course I want to stay alive now, but that's because I'm programmed with self-preservation as a priority.

 

 

 

Should I really be thankful that I'm being provided for? Nope. If someone created me, it is their obligation to keep me alive. At a cosmic level, there is no need for petty human manners, no need for a 'thank you.'

 

 

 

I can't be grateful not because I'm a [puncture], but because I am one of the few who have enough to live comfortably. I refuse to thank something that just luckily gave me opportunities, but denies them to my fellow humans. I refuse to thank him for my fortune to avoid being a [puncture].

 

 

 

The beginning of our lives are started by this God. Apparently, we are here to be tested. Some of us get easy kindergarten peg/hole tests, while others get college level exams. I will not be thankful for this injustice. I won't be thankful because I have an advantage not won by ability or skill (but hey, even those are dictated by genes. Which God apparently infuses).

 

 

 

I will stand with my fellow Man, not this God that promises me happiness if I betray them.

 

 

 

If there was a God, I'd care only because it is a major discovery ( a sentient being that can do whatever), but I will not worship him. Never.

 

 

 

I'd be happy to have a discussion with him though.

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, right: I don't like having my morals being credited to some omnipotent being. I am good because I am good. Not because I was commanded. Religion takes all the meaning out of a good deed...

[Cup Lion]

Oh, right: I don't like having my morals being credited to some omnipotent being. I am good because I am good. Not because I was commanded. Religion takes all the meaning out of a good deed...

 

That sure makes perfect sense.

 

 

 

I guess I'll use this for future debates then. God exists because God exists. :roll:

 

 

 

Who said you were commanded? He doesn't command you to do good. You could go out right now and stab a person. Yet, you don't (I hope). Wonder where that impetus to not kill someone comes from. The law? The law was revealed to the people by God (10 commandments, look them up).

 

 

 

EDIT:

 

Should I really be thankful to just have been created? Not really. I never asked to be created. Of course I want to stay alive now, but that's because I'm programmed with self-preservation as a priority.

 

Programmed with self-preservation? Who the hell did that? And if you are "programmed with self-preservation", how does your statement of...:

 

 

 

Should I really be thankful that I'm being provided for? Nope. If someone created me, it is their obligation to keep me alive. At a cosmic level, there is no need for petty human manners, no need for a 'thank you.'

 

...make sense? Doesn't sound like self-preservation.

[EdgedThesis]

Self-preservation is what drives an individual to stay alive. That doesn't mean he or she can do it. Obviously we need resources, which god is obligated to provide. Self-preservation makes us find those resources.

 

 

 

Self Preservation keeps me from committing suicide, because I value my life. But I was made to do so by basic rules that govern living things.

 

 

 

When I said I am good because I am good, I wasn't being redundant. I gave the reason for my 'goodness' to be intrinsic, not something I was told to do.

[Cup Lion]

Self-preservation is what drives an individual to stay alive. That doesn't mean he or she can do it. Obviously we need resources, which god is obligated to provide. Self-preservation makes us find those resources.

 

He doesn't provide them for us? The earth is barren of resources? And you said you are programmed with self-preservation, which makes you find those resources. So why don't you stop complaining about how God doesn't put them right at your feet, and obey your "programming" and find them. They are everywhere.

 

 

 

Self Preservation keeps me from committing suicide, because I value my life. But I was made to do so by basic rules that govern living things.

 

So you are saying that these natural rules that govern living things are not made by a higher being? My question still stands, then. Who programmed us with self-preservation? Couldn't be human. Any ideas?

 

 

 

When I said I am good because I am good, I wasn't being redundant. I gave the reason for my 'goodness' to be intrinsic, not something I was told to do.

 

So this intrinsic reason to be good just happened to evolve in humans only, and is not instilled by a higher being?

[EdgedThesis]

He DOES provide resources. But I won't thank him or worship him. It's his obligation to do so.

 

 

 

Self preservation is necessary in any organism. If this 'program' was absent, the individual would be eliminated from the gene pool. Only the creatures who struggle to stay alive will stay alive, and only they will pass their genetic information to new generations.

 

 

 

What I see as good can't have been instilled. 'Good' is thought of differently by different people.

 

 

 

Some people would ask you to keep a person alive, simply for the sake of being alive, while this person has nothing to live for. Such as in the case of paralysis. The people who ask you to keep this person alive would regard you as 'good' if you fulfilled their request.

 

 

 

Others would ask you to kill him without hesitation to stop him from suffering. This action would be thought by these people as 'good.'

 

 

 

There is no universal moral law. Nothing that can be instilled. What I see as good may be idiocy in another's eyes.

 

 

 

You think of yourself as good. You worship god. I believe myself to be good. But a requirement of my ethics is to defy him.

[Cup Lion]

What I see as good can't have been instilled. 'Good' is thought of differently by different people.

 

 

 

Some people would ask you to keep a person alive, simply for the sake of being alive, while this person has nothing to live for. Such as in the case of paralysis. The people who ask you to keep this person alive would regard you as 'good' if you fulfilled their request.

 

 

 

Others would ask you to kill him without hesitation to stop him from suffering. This action would be thought by these people as 'good.'

 

 

 

There is no universal moral law. Nothing that can be instilled. What I see as good may be idiocy in another's eyes.

 

 

 

You think of yourself as good. You worship god. I believe myself to be good. But a requirement of my ethics is to defy him.

 

Different opinions of 'good' would be called values. And I admit, those vary greatly among people. Values are influenced by other people, such as parents. Values, morals, and ethics are completely different things. Ethics happen to be choices of right or wrong, also influenced by people. These choices affect you and many others. All in all, ethics are good principles in practice as established by a group of individuals.

 

 

 

However, there is a universal moral law. Morals are objective, coming from outside us, while ethics and values come from within us. As I said earlier, morals come from God and do not change. 'What you may see as good may be idiocy in another's eyes'. Your values differ from the other persons, your ethics differ, yet your morals do not.

 

 

 

I do not doubt that you are 'good', whatever you wish to define that as. Question about your last statement, though: You are required to defy him? I thought you were free to believe what you wish? Who's making you defy him? I don't understand.

[flipflop121]

Talking about the programming state i think your trying to smart it up a bit to much. its basic instinct.

 

 

 

if your hungry you want to cure that hunger, so u go and get something to eat.

 

 

 

if you have 10 people trying to get 8 things then 2 go hungry, if this continues for awhile, that animal will die of hunger and the stronger / faster / taller etc etc one will survive.

 

 

 

basic instinct tells us to make the best out of our lives. whether that be a huge house, fast cars and a swimming pool the size of a tennis court. or simply to eat a meal / get a drink of water.

[EdgedThesis]

I guess Christianity is different from Islam, if God doesn't have a distinct set of rules.

 

 

 

A rule I have learned is that I have to be grateful and in a constant state of awe for what God is.

 

I have to thank him. Pray to him. Insist that all the good and bad that has happened to me is because of him.

 

 

 

I just don't want to, for my earlier reasons. I won't be thankful for an advantage given by chance of birth. By a pair of cosmic dice.

 

 

 

And so I defy what I've been told to do: be in perpetual gratitude and submission. To love Him.

 

 

 

And Morals are objective?

 

 

 

How? Maybe outside influences will spark thought and create a definite rule which YOU yourself generate that dictates between right and wrong-- but I don't see moral rules etched into our brains at birth.

 

 

 

A lot of my morals used to be based off of Aesop's :/

[Cup Lion]

A rule I have learned is that I have to be grateful and in a constant state of awe for what God is.

 

I have to thank him. Pray to him. Insist that all the good and bad that has happened to me is because of him.

 

 

 

I just don't want to, for my earlier reasons. I won't be thankful for an advantage given by chance of birth. By a pair of cosmic dice.

 

 

 

And so I defy what I've been told to do: be in perpetual gratitude and submission. To love Him.

 

But this isn't about loving or thanking God. You don't have to. Yet, that isn't what this thread is about. Its about acknowledging that God exists. I respect that you have your opinions. And if you didn't even say that God didn't exist, I am sorry for this whole discussion. On the other hand, if you don't think he exists, I am not sure what else I can say. Apparently, everything we know comes from instincs or whatnot.

 

 

 

A lot of my morals used to be based off of Aesop's :/

 

Those wouldn't be referred to as morals, in my opinion. Just values.

[EdgedThesis]

Oh, haha.

 

 

 

Yes, in my first post I stated that 'even if God did exist, blah.'

 

 

 

Whatever, it was a learning experience behind your viewpoint. No harm, really.

 

 

 

I can't say if God exists or does not. It's an unanswerable question. Sure, we could have been brought into existence without divine aid, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

 

 

 

I'm sure this will offend people, and I'm sorry, but, I think that if you assume one answer or the other correct, than you are a little arrogant.

 

 

 

I think the term for people with my point of view is 'Agnostic'. Neutral.

 

 

 

However, I'm leaning to the 'nonexistent' side a little bit just because humans have a tendency to assign personality to something they do not know fully.

 

 

 

Lightning, thunder, meh, it can all be explained. But they used to be mighty deities to people to primitive to understand them. But the reason Abrahamic religions still thrive is because the fundamental questions it answers are pretty much unanswerable. Or without an answer. They still thrive because we want to give purpose and importance to our race, even though we just might be a random occurrence.

 

 

 

I'm sure someone has already said this though.

[Cup Lion]

Truly, it was a learning experience. I'll be sure to share what you think with the people in my class tomorrow, because you made many statements that had good points.

 

 

 

If a God does exists, and eternal life with him in heaven does as well, I don't think believing will matter much if you treat your fellow wo/men with respect and live a 'good' life. :)

 

 

 

In all honesty, your second-to-last statement is logical, and I can understand that. Being openminded helps lessen that arrogance, I hope.

 

 

 

And a goodnight to you. :thumbup:

 

 

 

EDIT: My last part of my post probably won't make sense, since you seemed to have edited yours while I posted mine.

 

 

 

I completely understand that it makes sense for a human to assign a higher being as the explanation of the unknown. Its one of the many ideas that gets me thinking really hard/stumps me. It'll keep me up even later than I am. :P

[EdgedThesis]

I agree wholeheartedly with your second statement.

 

 

 

I just hope that if a God exists, his mercy and what I have done in life will outweigh my lack of faith/prayer.

 

 

 

It's a mystery that will make death enjoyable. Well, as enjoyable as dying can be. I'll get the answer to all of my questions.

 

 

 

In a perfect world, by the end of this, all of us are going to be kickin' it in heaven. Or, we'd be nonexistent, and we wouldn't be able to care. : p

 

 

 

Cool, this discussion is at it's end. Time for some sleep. 'Night.

[warri0r45]

Again, I'm still waiting for an valid argument on the topic of god. There seems to be no proof coming from the side of the believers, simply because it is blind faith. There has never been a bullet proof argument for the idea of god, so I stand both unimpressed and unconvinced.

 

Of course, the point of this thread is to impress and convince you personally that there is a God.

 

 

 

Every person has morals, which are standards of right behavior. Yet, where do these morals come from? How do we know what right behavior is? Its common sense that killing a person (not in self-defense) is wrong. But where does that common sense come from? It must come from a higher being, a diety, a god. An atheist could argue that this is not possible, since a god doesn't exist. Part of out morals come from our parents. Parents teach us the basics of morality when we are young. Now, if one's parents were atheists, where did their parents get their morals? If you trace it back far enough, you are bound to run into a generation in which your relatives did believe in a god, in this case, the true God (my opinion). Thus, their morals came from that God, and their parents.

 

 

 

However, lets say there is a tribe of completely isolated people who have never heard of a god. Where do they get their standards of right and wrong? Its called natural law. Natural law happens to be influenced by God, seeing as he created nature. Thus, they still get their morals from God.

 

 

 

So tell me, where do you get your morals? A god maybe?

 

 

 

It could be evolution by natural selection in that social animals find a benefit in being social. If there was a group of 100 people and they all had slightly different abilities, would they be more likely to survive together, or apart? Why do insects like ants live in colonies? Why do elephants travel in herds? Could it be for the same reason?

 

 

 

Here's the thing: a mental hurdle to killing someone else benefits the human species as a whole by maximising the chances of survival for everyone. Could you imagine how far we'd get as a species if we didn't have a mental barrier to the act of killing another human being? We would be extinct by now. It's worth noting that this scenario isn't perfect, though. Even to this day, different social groups are hostile to one another, the more different they look, the more likely the animosity.

 

 

 

Another interesting trait we humans seem to possess is fear of being ostracised by the group, hence why we tend to go with the forces of society (parents, school, culture) and try not to stick our heads above the crowd, so to speak. How could this evolve? Again, selection pressures are focused on keeping us all within the group. Any straying from the herd and we inevitably die.

 

 

 

 

So you are saying that these natural rules that govern living things are not made by a higher being? My question still stands, then. Who programmed us with self-preservation? Couldn't be human. Any ideas?

 

 

 

Again, evolution. Natural selection favours those who have instincts of self-preservation. There are perfectly logical natural explanations for these things. Your arguments fall short of proving the existence of a god, sorry.

 

 

 

You can't expect to insert god into the equation as if that magically explains everything. How did god create morals? Because he felt like it? How does that work? Can you show me the logic behind that? How do you go from not understanding something (the existence of morals) therefore the existence of a concept (god) which you define as able to explain morals? Can you put god or his attributes to the test? How can I know that god exists as claimed other than through faith alone?

 

 

 

You get the picture. You can see why some people just aren't satisfied with god as an answer for anything. You can't put the nature or actions of a god to the test at all, hence why there's just as much evidence for any other concept I might want to invent to "solve" the problem. I don't think "I define it as such, and it is" is a rigorous way to answer something if you can't put it to some empirically understandable test.

[Lenticular_J]

I do expect to be taken seriously. Every time some one brings up a bible passage I take it 100% seriously. I laugh at the book myself, sure, but if you take it something seriously and debate it with me, you better believe I'll be dead serious the whole way through (with the exception of comical flaws in nearly every argument for the bible).

 

Oops, don't really have anything to say to that one. Just cosed the quote on it :lol:

 

 

 

Not reading the whole bible is NOT a means of discrediting someone. It is the burden of proof laid upon the believers that is yours to carry, and not the other way around. My knowledge of the bible could be nill, but I would still be able to carry out a well argued debate based on logical flaws alone. Reading 3/4ths of the book helps, sure, because I can more easily deconstruct arguments, but even if I didn't know a single word it wouldn't hurt my cause.

 

It most certainly does. What if I started debating with you, say, evolution, and all I knew was that people evolved from something else? Would you expect my arguments to be fully credited and reasonable?

 

 

 

My interpretations of the bible weren't biased at the time I read them, which was before I denounced my faith in god. I had more faith than most, but sometimes you watch something happen and begin to think: "Why didn't god stop this?"

 

Okay, I apologize, then. (First part)

 

Once again, back to, "Thank God for protecting us from something worse."

 

 

 

Again, I'm still waiting for an valid argument on the topic of god. There seems to be no proof coming from the side of the believers, simply because it is blind faith. There has never been a bullet proof argument for the idea of god, so I stand both unimpressed and unconvinced.

 

Faith isn't blind for us that are guided by God.

 

 

 

And again you prove you don't understand faith.

[sloter]

Nope he is not. If there was a god that supposedly created the world don't you think there would be just one set god and not all these people all over the world believing all this other [cabbage]? Also how can you people that believe in god prove to me he is real? The bible? What has that got to say...? Some guy could have just written it up on some psychedelic trip? Plus i think all the churches do is brainwash and [cabbage] people all the way. If god created us why is he going to kill us? He made a rock/stone why doesn't he kill that? Just another few good reasons there is no god.

[Cup Lion]

The bible? What has that got to say...? Some guy could have just written it up on some psychedelic trip? Plus i think all the churches do is brainwash and [cabbage] people all the way.

 

The Bible was written by various authors, which disproves the fact that it was written on some psychedelic trip. The church says the authors of the Bible were divinly influenced by the Holy Spirit. The books, for the most part, are coherent. It doesn't make sense that all these people were on a psychedelic trip at the same time, and just decided to add their little hallucinations together to form a book. A lot of it is history.

 

 

 

If god created us why is he going to kill us? He made a rock/stone why doesn't he kill that? Just another few good reasons there is no god.

 

I wouldn't go as far as to say that he personally kills us. Our bodies fail. Yet, the church would simply say you die because God feels it is time that you should join him in heaven. And to your second question, rocks/stones aren't living things, and therefore cannot be killed.

[D Jay99]

 

Faith isn't blind for us that are guided by God.

 

 

 

And again you prove you don't understand faith.

That's the vague part. You say those who don't believe in God or don't accept him as a God don't understand what those who believe in God do understand.

 

 

 

How are the non believers supposed to have faith if no one explains them how to have it? Do they have to wait until they get a sign from God or something similar?

 

 

 

I could have faith in something green and fuzzly high in the sky, that provides me with good marks and food. It also makes me happy and punishes when I mess things up. If you don't believe in it and don't serve it, you will not be chosen to enter the Eternal Realm of Pink Pancakes where the Green Fuzzly Thing reigns. Oh, you want to know how you are supposed to obey him? Here, read this book I've written. There are many stories in there about people who've had experiences with the Green Fuzzly Thing and how they lived. Read it and act how the persons in the book did, follow the rules the Fuzzly Thing provided you, and you will enter the Eternal Realm after you die.

 

 

 

Link to a religion similar to what I described above

 

 

 

Tell me, what are the differences between God and the Great Fuzzly Thing?

[user1991]

Again, I'm still waiting for an valid argument on the topic of god. There seems to be no proof coming from the side of the believers, simply because it is blind faith. There has never been a bullet proof argument for the idea of god, so I stand both unimpressed and unconvinced.

 

Of course, the point of this thread is to impress and convince you personally that there is a God.

 

 

 

Every person has morals, which are standards of right behavior. Yet, where do these morals come from? How do we know what right behavior is? Its common sense that killing a person (not in self-defense) is wrong. But where does that common sense come from? It must come from a higher being, a diety, a god. No, it doesn't have to, ill explain further. An atheist could argue that this is not possible, since a god doesn't exist. Part of out morals come from our parents. Parents teach us the basics of morality when we are young. Now, if one's parents were atheists, where did their parents get their morals? If you trace it back far enough, you are bound to run into a generation in which your relatives did believe in a god, in this case, the true God (my opinion). Thus, their morals came from that God, and their parents.

 

 

 

Absolutely ridiculous logic. Morality comes from, in Dawkin's words, the changing zeitgeist. Our morals haven't been so concrete in the past, despite what you may claim. Not even that long ago, cannibalism was commonplace, as well as human sacrifice, child sacrifice, animal sacrifice, etc etc. Morality definitely doesn't come from the Christian God. When you read the Bible, do you adhere to every single word, or do you "interpret" (the Christian word for "cherry pick") which sections you believe? I assume you belong to the second category. So if morality came from the Christian God.. wouldn't you consider it "right" to kill homosexuals, adulterers? You don't, so obviously your morality hasn't come from the Bible. And if you go back to early civilisation, pretty much anything went. We only abolished slavery relatively recently (when you look at human civilisation as a whole). Now if a God supplied morality, you would think it would be pretty much solid, or objective, unless of course, omniscient and omnipotent Gods (I wouldn't be doing my duties as an atheist if I didn't point out that these two traits contradict)[*] make mistakes. So why, please tell me, if you trace back the history have human civilisation, have our morals been so ever-changing? The answer - zeitgeist (not the movie)

 

 

 

However, lets say there is a tribe of completely isolated people who have never heard of a god. Where do they get their standards of right and wrong? Its called natural law. Natural law happens to be influenced by God, seeing as he created nature. Thus, they still get their morals from God.

 

What evidence do you have to support the idea that God created nature? The Bible? Nature itself? Oh wait, we're going in circles. How familiar.

 

 

 

 

 

So tell me, where do you get your morals? A god maybe?

 

 

 

A combination of the process of natural selection and the changing zeitgeist. Unlike yours, these claims are actually based upon evidence.

 

 

 

[*] Can an omniscient and omnipotent God change that which he already knows?

 

 

 

 

 

 

@ I get angry when arguing with theists, simply because the concept of faith demands that you believe something without evidence. Whenever I've talked to Christians irl, they always resort to saying well "I believe in God, and it doesn't matter if you disprove my arguments, because I have faith." There is no evidence of a God. Its as simple as this. SUPPLY ME WITH SOME, AND I WILL CONVERT. No joke, just give me the evidence. As long as it is real, credible, testable evidence, then I will have no problem converting.

 

 

 

Let me guess.. you can't? But you believe it anyway, because the concept of faith demands that you do. This, is a hindrance to both the progression of science, and the progression of our understanding of life, consciousness, time, and existence. I apologize if I come across as an arrogant atheist, but this is because what you're saying makes absolutely no sense. I get angry because it annoys me that still, with the level of technology we have, and the things we can create, we still have people that believe something no matter what the evidence suggests, and that this concept is actually COMMENDED in theistic circles. The arguments you supply just seem so childish, and even if I disproved every single one of them, you would still have "faith." Do you not realise now ridiculous such a notion is?

[NoMoreDead]

 

@ I get angry when arguing with theists, simply because the concept of faith demands that you believe something without evidence. Whenever I've talked to Christians irl, they always resort to saying well "I believe in God, and it doesn't matter if you disprove my arguments, because I have faith." There is no evidence of a God. Its as simple as this. SUPPLY ME WITH SOME, AND I WILL CONVERT. No joke, just give me the evidence. As long as it is real, credible, testable evidence, then I will have no problem converting.

 

 

 

Let me guess.. you can't? But you believe it anyway, because the concept of faith demands that you do. This, is a hindrance to both the progression of science, and the progression of our understanding of life, consciousness, time, and existence. I apologize if I come across as an arrogant atheist, but this is because what you're saying makes absolutely no sense. I get angry because it annoys me that still, with the level of technology we have, and the things we can create, we still have people that believe something no matter what the evidence suggests, and that this concept is actually COMMENDED in theistic circles. The arguments you supply just seem so childish, and even if I disproved every single one of them, you would still have "faith." Do you not realise now ridiculous such a notion is?

 

 

 

This is the question I would like answered as well. However, I've simply been told I don't understand faith and been passed by. Stay on topic, theists. I'd like to see a well-reasoned debate out of you. How about some evidence?

[Gravy]

Can't remember if I posted on this thread o.O

 

 

 

Post my thoughts, eh? Ok.

 

 

 

I personally find it hard, no, impossible to believe that there is a greater force floating around that takes us to Heaven, or whatever we chose it to be. I believe God is nothing more than a force which nearly forces people to behave, but also is used an excuse for many, many hardships. Such as Religious Wars.

 

 

 

Science has proved to me so many things that seem so very logical, I can't disagree with it, I just can't. I'm a non-believer.

 

 

 

It's too illlogical.

 

 

 

My thoughts!