I think the word you're looking for is hypothesis, not faith. Cause faith is believing something for no reason whatsoever. A hypothesis is an idea that can be tested and falsified(proven wrong). Electrons were a hypothesis based on educated assumptions, and have been tested and observed in the real world. God has failed every test designed to find him, and believers just declare him to be untestable because that would destroy faith. If you're suggesting that electrons and God have the same amount of evidence, then I for one would very much like to see it. And if you don't already have it then finding this evidence should be as easy as it was to prove electrons. Just design a test that would succeed if there is a god and he behaves as you believe him to, and then if that test fails then you're wrong.
Besides the comment this is your last Post in this Debate, I would like to point out something. 17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,' "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. 18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. 19 By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return." Is this a very harsh Punishment for humans? I mean the Dark Angles Got off easy in comparison. Would this count as injustice?
Right. Religion hasn't given anything to anyone. It's taken values that were already existent and applied them to pretty much mythical stories. That's not to say these stories didn't occur, but think about it: are Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, aliens, or God existent? All are very well possible, I just don't see the need to go, "Yo, this is the truth. All you other religions got it wrong." It would be so much easier (and would result in less conflict) if we just kept this stuff to hypothetical theories.
Ugh, I could say so much, considering I study the Bible daily, and its apparent if you did you would know the answer to these questions, and even though this is a late quote, I still want to clarify these things. 1. I see not how this is racist. 2. It would have been nice to state which book, but that's all right. The reason Paul wrote the letter to most of the churches is because he was correcting them of their wrongdoings. The problem with the church of Corinth was that the women and men were becoming distracted during church - also, if you notice, verse 13 tells us to make our own judgment of the matter. Also, the verse you quoted in Timothy does no way oppress women. 3. You must look at the previous verses, specifically 13-17, then you will understand. 4. In this case are you saying discipline is evil, or stoning? Because if discipline, you contradict yourself, because you state word from the Bible which is disproved by the Bible itself. The Bible clearly supports discipline. If stoning, Deuteronomy is stated as a book of laws, specifically how Israel judges itself. You may also want to see 11:26-28, as it states that those who disobey the Lord shall be cursed, more specifically in 30:17/18 it states that those who disobey shall be destroyed. 5. I'd like to state that Modern-day court laws don't use the Bible, so that statement can't exactly be used. And secondly, there is no specific reason as to why God planted the tree of evil, all I can say is that he planned it out, even if it was evil, it did something. As the Bible has no way of saying why, I simply can't answer this. 1. I don't think the Bible reckons at every single animal, it means the 7 types of clean animals, which I hope you know. 2. Some people like me, though Christian, don't believe that. Nowhere in the Bible does it state this, its merely a matter of religion to me. I don't like to spark arguments, I just had to answer these questions.
Yeah, read one verse further and its just a test done by Jesus to test a woman's faith. The verses in Timothy in now way oppress women? The verses are in the spoiler. Spoiler 1 Timothy 2:11-15 (American Standard Version) 11 Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. 12 But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled hath fallen into transgression: 15 but she shall be saved through her child-bearing, if they continue in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety. "Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection." No of course, nothing wrong with that, right?... "woman...cannot have dominion over man." No, of course not. Women are dumb and are only good at making babies. We'd be better off if they were born with less talky and more ****y. "For Adam was formed first." Dumb bimbos, we came first, god likes us more. "Adam wasn't tricked where did you go wrong?" Besides the fact that this verse takes one instance of a woman being tricked and applies it to all women, how childish is this religion? It's like Michael Jordan dunking the ball and all the men standing up and saying, "Yeah, **** yeah, men all-tha-way! We so did that, we are so good at this." Which isn't abnormal if you think about it but you'd really have to be stupid to think that god is inspiring the average, everyday sportsfan or his ancient equivalent (whom I like to call a douche bag). "Saved by the babies." Men are cool so long as they keep the faith but women, they have a duty. Make some damn babies or you're going straight to hell. Men - Be a good person, believe in Jesus and god >> Go to heaven. Women - Be a good person, believe in Jesus and god, make babies >> Go to heaven. It's ridiculous to think that women must make babies to be forgiven by an omnipotent, all-knowing god. Why on earth is that third step added? By that logic men must toil the fields to get into heaven (not that there's any mention of that...). So you better get cracking, if you don't toil them fields you are going to hell, unless god is following his own logical extents and making exceptions. In which case I call bullshit for pick favorites. These verses are clear chauvinistic. Verses: Spoiler 1 Peter 2:13-18 (King James Version) 13Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; 14Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. 15For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: 16As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. 17Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king. 18Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward. The sad thing is the King James version, not matter how well translated it was, it was revised by the King to reflect god's will of subservience to the government. It was essentially a form of control. "Don't revolt, you'll go to hell." However, assuming you reject that let's examine these verses. "Submit yourself...to the king." American Revolution. Obviously, this is against god but, hey, who am I to judge an all knowing god who sometimes dabbles in politics? "Praise governors for the punishment of wrongdoers." It doesn't give details but I'm assuming from the previous verse that it means you must accept even harsh punishments dealt to evildoers without question. Another form of control and peacekeeping. "Silence the foolish and ignorant." Bill of Rights - Freedom of speech. It guarantees the freedom to speak as you will about ANYTHING you please. Though it has been misconstrued since then and our Freedom of Speech is only a hollow shell of what once was, the ignorant have just as much right to speak as we do. It's how learn, it's how we teach. If every man bit his tongue there would be no reason to engage in debate and to further the knowledge of the individual. But why should god care what the foolish say? If he's so concerned about what they're saying why did he allow them to do it in the first place. Why does god command us to carry out all his punishments for him and then tell us that there's a magical place of punishment after they die...but you can't see it or feel it or anything. Why should I believe that? It seems his will is so ineffective he can't carry anything out on earth so he makes false promises of punishments later on. Stupid verse is stupid. "Be upright and responsible with your liberty." Agreed. "Honour all men, honour the king, love thy brotherhood, fear god." I will not fear god because he can't do anything to me (though his followers can!). I will honour all men, but I will not honour a king or tyrant, if I honour them it is by me honouring all men. "Servants, bow down and take it like a *****." It's against god to runaway or void your slavery. Harriet Tubman you *****, how dare you. See you in hell. My atheist ass is finding you. Dicipline is not evil so long as its corretive. Stoning and eternal punishment is vindictive because it has no positive outcome for the individual, nor is there any purpose other than spite and vengence. Dicipline is all about correction, you can't correct someone if you kill them. This is why they call it the death penalty not the death correctional process (prisons - correctional facilities; death penalty - PENALTY). I disobey god daily which isn't necessarily a breach of human law but his zany overly controlling laws. God is totalitarian and he can go **** himself. Liberty will reign supreme and no tyrant here or above will stop me or it. It doesn't matter if they don't use the bible, the bible can still be called into question by our legal system. God is a flame-baiter. Think about it. No one would blaspheme him had he not planted it there. Likewise, no one would flame a user who didn't somehow provoke it and if the user didn't post at all he could never be considered a flame bait. God shouldn't have put the tree there if he didn't want people cursing his name. My huge problem with the bullshit story of creation is why the **** do you call something "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" and expect Adam and Eve to know what good and evil is. Ok say I'm god and I make "the tree of following commands given by authorities" and tell my creation not to eat of this tree. Can I fault them when they don't follw my command? It would seem ridiculous to try. Haha. Well in that case there should only be the clean animals around and we obviously have more than that. There are actually two accounts of the flood, with different specifications. There is no reason to believe one over the other they might as well both be true or neither of them be true. The "both" answer seems farfetched and the "neither" answer seems to be the most plausible of the two. They do this by geneology you know. Its not like they pull it out of their ass this is something that's in the bible. -- I'm usually not this sacreligious. I just didn't want this post to be bland so I spiced it up a bit with a little blasphemous humor.
Meh, Before I go into my little speech here i'd like to clear some things up. I'm Agnostic, I believe there is somthign out there similar to a god (it may or may not exist anymore but somthing had to start or create the small atom that caused the big bang and life itself.) This is purely my opinion. Ok, I know this is about god and what not but the Bible deals with god.. soo here I go. I was thinking one day, That perhaps the Bible all started due to Mary the mother of god telling a lie to her husband because she cheated on him (Adultery was a big No-No back then.) So she lied saying that God had given her a child. He foolishly believed this along with numerous others. The child grew up thinking this therefore became a priest of sorts and preached the good word of his "father". This of course led to the entire bible. A series of coincidences that started out as a lie to cover an affair in an effort to not "Blacken" mary's name. It's 2:11 AM here and i'm tired so i didn't go into great detail of my theory so sorry for it being bad.
It's 3 AM here, so I'm just going to pipe in with a bit of random food for thought- a few arguments about God for all of you to chew on. Time to rattle the cage a bit. If you cannot defeat even ONE of the following arguments, your definition of God is faulty. It is hereby proposed that God is all powerful. Can God make a stone that is so heavy that even God Itself cannot lift it? If yes, God is not all powerful If no, God is not all powerful. Therefore, God is not all powerful. It is hereby proposed that God is all-knowing. God was shocked and angered when Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge. If God was all knowing, God would have known that placing the tree in the garden would result in Original Sin, and would not have been shocked or angered. Therefore, God is not all knowing. It is hereby proposed that God is loving It is hereby proposed that person A is inherently loving and moral. However, person A is not religious. It is stated that any who are not religious will burn in eternal torment. A loving being would not condemn a morally good person to eternal torment. Therefore, God is not loving. God is the only being without sin. Sin is defined as an act of disobedience from God. God cannot be disobdient to itself. Therefore, the concept of sin is arbitrary. It is proposed that God is at once both infinitely forgiving and wrathful. To be infinitely forgiving, one must never be vengeful. To be infinitely wrathful, one must have no kindness. Therefore, infinite forgiveness and infinite wrathfulness are mutually exclusive. It is proposed that an eternally contradictory being cannot truly exist. God is eternally contradictory, as God embodies at oncec two mutually exclusive concepts. Therefore, God does not exist. To any who might say "You just can't understand a being as complex as God", I respond "Then why does your religious institution try so hard to do so?"
I want to know where you buy your coffee, very well put together arguments! Would love to see the replies to these.
There cannot be a logical argument against any of his statements because all paths lead to the same conclusion that god cannot exist. But that won't prevent people from arguing otherwise.
I'll just reply to these two. 1. God could make a stone so heavy but he would still be able to lift it. You can't say God isn't all powerful because he wouldn't make a stone he can't lift. 2. First of all you shouldn't be saying religious, because that has nothing to do with Christianity, unless you're saying Christianity is a religion. Being religious can mean following any religion. The thing is, God does not condemn people to eternal torment, he tries to save them, but if people don't accept it, then they go to eternal torment.
Personally i think azrius is right, I just cant beleive he exists, In my eyes, all religion is are groups of people who say their right and everybody else is wrong,thus making wars and killing people, so to me: religion=wars and killing
I think someone like you should know I can't give logical evidence on something that never had hard physical evidence (of my personal experience).
Too bad God cannot "create" anything, all matter can only be converted, not created. What matter we have in this universe of ours is what we get. That's it. Therefore, the very title of the theory "Creation" shows that it is not possible, which furthermore disproves any sort of God.
So, HOW DID things come into the universe? If objects are not created nor destroyed how do we have any understanding of the time it takes to create or destroy a planet, because matter was at one time a dense ball clearly that can't be the beginning either. I am not Religious but I know both belief and Science or never Really right.
The difference is, science doesn't feel the need to pretend it knows things it doesn't know just to convince people it is infallible. Only religion pretends to know things that nobody could ever know, and they call the source of this knowledge "God", when any normal person would call it "imagination" or "creativity" or "fictional stories."
They didn't just appear one day. They have always been here. You're confused because you see time as linear- things are in the present, past, of future. The fact is that they aren't. Time is just another dimension, but instead of seeing it with our eyes we perceive it as coming and going.
Then riddle me this. The Big Bang is the theory that all the matter in the universe compressed, spinned really fast, and then exploded and basically created the universe, and species through evolution. So tell me this. According to the Conservation of Angular Momentum, the mass of the big bang before its explosion must have been spinning either clockwise or counter clockwise. Let's say it spun clockwise. According to the conservation of angular momentum, everything in the big bang should have kept spinning clockwise. Now tell me why some planets spin counter clockwise?