Debate God

I just can't understand how someone can be so crass and yet so wrong at the same time. Don't blame people for not understanding your arguments, rephrase it!

If you have taken at least a high school level biology class you would know that evolution does not describe how life came about, it describes what happens afterwards. Evolution in no way, shape, or form disproves god.

Next time use some common sense please, and maybe take some anger management classes.

 

Evolution dictates that modern man EVOLVED from animals.That is true.Now,Religion says that God created humans and that nothing came before them and modern humans did not change from something else,they started there exsistence with intellect and emotion which we know cannot be true because we know our ansetors brains were too small to function mentally as we do.That is also true.Sounds like a contradiction dont you think?And let me add another facts that disprove the exsistence of God and that science can answer.God said he created the world in seven days,but we have proof that it took millions of years to create.

 

We've been over this before. "7 days" could be a representation of different stages, not literally meaning 7 periods of 24 hours.

 

I didn't know Christianity served as the general consensus on all matters of religion. Religion does not say that creation is true. Christianity doesn't even say that. Creation theory was brought about as a result of religion. Don't you think it could be possible that god created life and merely used natural processes (evolution) to grow that life? Also, don't take everything you hear in the bible to be true, that 7 days things could be a metaphor for the 7 stages in the Universe's creation.

 

Let's actually revise that to "don't take ANYTHING you hear in the Bible to be LITERALLY UNDERSTOOD". The thing is, people don't just write a history book and throw in random "do this, don't do that" in it. The idea is to live your life with a kind of 'guide', I suppose you'd call it.

Regardless, as skewed as people's thoughts of what religion is are, this is getting to offtopic. Using creation against existence of God is just kind of ridiculous. Same with wordplay using literal phrases (from a part not in the Old Testament, might I mention ) *cough*Nitrous.

 

Im sorry but wheres you proof again?And that is incorrect...christianity does say that creation is true plz dont try to argue this for you are clearly wrong.

Let me englighten you a tad bit.Lets talk about the "10 commandments" and how its pure bullshit,a political document yousd to control dumb primitive people.About five thousand years ago a bunch of religious and political aassholes went up on a mountain,all by them ****in self.Riight off the bat the first 3 or complete bullshit,a way to scare and contol primitive people,none of this applies to the lives of intelligent peopel of the 21century.The 4th...owner they father and mother(obedience) or in other words respect for athority just another way to control people.First of all obedience and respect should not be automatic,they should be earned,they should be based by the parents performance.All the other ones are just laws to keep people in line like stealing and killing.But then again,religion hasnt had a real problem with murder now have they,i mean more people have been killed in the name of God then anyother reason.All you need to do is look at Norther Ireland,The middle East,Kashmir,The inquisition,The Crusades and The World Trade Center just to seee how serious religious folks take "Thou shalt not kill".

 

Not when abiogenesis provides an even more logically sound theory of the origins of life.

Well I guess seeing as how the idea is to give your life a guide, that definitely makes omnipotent beings real. Definitely.

 

I never used that in defense of the existence of God, but in defense of what principles the Bible values.

Obviously I have no proof whether God exists or not, nor do I particularly care. I care a lot for my religion and tradition, and regardless of if there is or not shouldn't change the way I behave. Obviously this shouldn't be used in a debate, but what I'm saying is...this has nothing to do with the question of God's existence, which is why it should get back on 'topic', with a ridiculously bad debating here

Apparently parents should be "judged on their performance"...sorry, but I practically ROFLed on that...kids...

 

Apparently parents should be "judged on their performance"...sorry, but I practically ROFLed on that...kids...[/QUOTE]


First of all im not a kid.Secondly what your religion is blind you sadly.I guess every parent should be respected by there kids even if there kids get ****ed in the ass by them or beat the living **** out of them,your absolutlly correct,that makes perfect sense.But who knows,maybe you've had some of these experience yourself.I guess that administrator title makes you feel like a big boy.

 

Huh. Your behavior would suggest that you were. "what your religion is blind you sadly". I see. I have a strong religious and family background in European Jewry, I'm pretty sure I'm not "blind" because I appreciate religion for improving my life. Yes, I respect parents, and you clearly have no idea what your talking about. There's a difference between being abused and "respecting parents based on performance". It's like it's a competition...who can appease your kid the most? Then you can get HIGH PERFORMANCE RATINGS. By the way, I've never been "****ed in the ass by them or beat the living **** out of them", and most people aren't. Sure, it happens, but that doesn't mean anything. While I'm on that point, once a parent goes so far as that point, they're not subjected to "respecting your parents".

I just LOVE the kids (yes, I said kids. Live with it or learn grammar) who hear something and then decide that what they've been told is truth. I'd like to hear some sources on what you have to say. Though most of my points are clearly on morality and what it's supposed to mean, I could get some sources to back me up if I have to. Why is this all false?

It's funny, you'd think that if you could think for yourself about religion (barely), that you could think about common sense. This doesn't belong here, or anywhere else on these forums, thanks. As a conclusion, GTFO and STFU, this doesn't belong here and especially not your overly crude and personal jabs at my character. Read the rules.

(Sorry for the break in the conversation guys...please continue where we were before this)

 

Clearly you dont know what your talking about if you think parents should automatically recieve respect from there kids.And I never said it was like a "competition" as you put it,all I said is that some parents deserve respect and some don't,the two catagories are sorted out by there performance as parents and therefore should be earned not just some perk you get for being a mom or dad.

And this nonsence you speak of about kids hearing **** and then beleving,this is what I believe,I never said anything was "false" as you falsely proclaimed yet again,all I said was that there is no facts to back up the exsistence of God and you know this to be true but at the same time theres so many facts that disapprove it.Science contradicts Religion its as simple as that.I know what I said about the commandments may not be true,but it makes sense to me so dont go running your mouth trying to say I just heard this from someone and now I except it.

And I do think that my opinion counts for something here and anywhere else,this is a debate right?so ill say what I need to say to support my case.I guess your nonsense dont mean **** either than, SO GET THE **** OUT and SHUT THE **** UP.

 

Agreed, honestly though the real problem with the verse is that it extends only to the father and mother. You should respect your elders, not because their your elders, but because their people. And all people whom you meet you should extend a mutual respect until they have done something to warrant a loss of such respect. But thats both off topic and not the issue in question here. Ok, as to the actual question this thread presents as to the existence or nonexistence of a god. First off its been a pretty large argument in the past two pages that defaming and discrediting the three major Abrahamic religions and their holy books does not in any way prove or disprove god's existence.

To which I contend that the abrahamic religions and their holy books are very relevant prizes to be discredited in the debate because they are the biggest common denominator in people who believe in god and are also possibly the biggest facilitator of belief in god. While not an ultimate "means to an end" with the debate so to speak they are a huge step in coming to a conclusion. You can't have everyone come to the end of the debate with an overwhelming atheistic outlook (a very unlikely conclusion mind you.) and have everyone say "yeah theres no god but the bible is still totally correct and infallible." That is very blatant doublethink and sequence breaking. And obviously not going to happen.

I'm not actually sure where this debate actually is so I'm just going to give my most humble and sincere show of agreement to our local insane fifty four. "Quoted for truth."

 

hey sheo i think its about time you hoped off the insaane train dont you think???

 

I do not expect my responses to suffice for you to become a theist; however I CAN show you how these arguments do not affect me. My responses are my own logic that makes the stated arguments null and void, whether or not you see them so, I cannot control.

Response One:

God wants us to love him. If he created us without an ability to choose that, we wouldn't love him. There had to be another choice in order for us to love him.

First off, the Christian definition of "evil" is a lack of God. God is Holy, and he has a Holy standard, to fall below that standard is called sin. If you sin it tears God out of you, independence is earned by sin. Making all sinners, by default, Godless.

If you are Godless then you are independent of God's standard, sinning almost constantly, this is called evil. In human eyes this may seem a lighter definition for it; because this makes the neighborhood bully no less "evil" than Hitler or the Unibomber. Well, sin is all equal in God's eyes: sin is sin, no variation of severity. The onyl reason we see one sin as worse or less than another is because of it's effects. If I call you a name, the effects are very low, if I killed you, boom. Yet, they are equal on the sin scale.

Now, onto the first part of your quote: ""Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then is he impotent."

He is willing and able. He will. Just not yet. (See Revelation)

"Is God able but not willing? Then is He malevolent."

He is willing and able. He will. Just not yet. (See Revelation)

"Is God both able and willing? Whence then is evil?"

He is. Evil is our own fault. God does not control you. You can do whatever you like. God isn't going to invade your mind and control your body; if you decide to blow up your house and kill your family, God didn't do that, you did. If you decide you like Coke instead of Pepsi, God didn't decide that for you. You did.

To question after that is to question why we were given free will. He gave us free will so we could love him, so we were able to choose between ourselves and him, and choose him.

Any sinner is 100% responsible for their own sin. You are not a programmed robot; what you do is your own choice.

Response Two:
"Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then is he impotent.

Is God able but not willing? Then is He malevolent.

Is God both able and willing? Whence then is evil?"[/spoiler]

You may recognize this as an Epicuran argument.

As for my second argument, it will deal with biblical accuracy. How do you reconcile the following argument?

The first verse was misinterpreted. Paul is not speaking of a concious being, but the characteristics of love.

The majority of the Bible is meant to taken literally, but if it says Jesus is a door, are we to disregard common sense and benefit of the doubt enough to be able to claim Christians pray to a door? No.

God is a concious. He is love, but not the feeling, he is the quintessence of love, the origin of it all. Paul was talking about the emotion, or feeling or however you would like to call it.

You quoted that God is jealous and can be provoked; have you ever heard of righteous anger?

Take the following scenario:

You are a father; you have given your child all that he knows, and have never wronged him. Then, your child decides he wants a new dad. This can both produce richeous jealousy and anger. Neither are acted on rashly though, and jealousy is different from coveting and envy.

1. What you just stated proved your ignorance of religion.

2. Relgious people decide to believe in something if it seems logical to them, andthey recognize that something does not need to be proven to exist.

3. People follow the "innocent until proven guilty" philosophy in COURT. That is a good way of managing LAW. Not REALITY.

Can you prove to me your mind is your own? No. You can no more prove your mind exists as a conciousness than I can prove God to you. Yet, you believe your mind is your own, and I believe in God.

 

2) Just because it seems logical to you doesn't mean it is. There is one reality; anything that you believe in should be equally provable to anybody else you meet. If it's only logical within your own mind, then it isn't logical at all.
And yes, something has to be proven or provable in order to exist. Think about it. Every single thing in our universe leaves a trace, has an effect. If it has no way of being proven then it has absolutely no effect upon our universe, and thus doesn't exist.
3) My point is this: you have arbitrarily decided to believe in the Christian god above all others. It's not because it's any more right than any other god, but just because you decided to believe in that one at some time in your past, whether it be consciously or automatically, and cling to that belief to this day.
Internally, you feel that your god is undoubtedly the correct one, due to gut feelings alone. You will not be able to see the truth until you abandon that notion and look around you for evidence, not within you.
4) My mind is not 'my own.' It's a collection of cells that operation in such a way as to obtain the ability to observe, think, choose between actions, have a sense of self, etc..

 

Question: if God forgives our sins, does that mean we can sin all we want?

 

Short answer: yes.

Long answer: If you're going to be a believer in God then it's your goal to sin less not more.

 

If your defining sin you have to pick the religion with your view of a sin is in. So what religion should you pick the oldest or the most popular? They both probably contain differences in what is and what isnt a sin or bad thing to do. Argueing about if a god gave us sin or what they consider sin will be difficult just as any other god argument because no one ever figured out which one were/ are the right one to believe in because not one of all the man made gods have shown themselves to us and said "hey, hi ,ya I am the real one get on the program" . They simply is no such thing as a sin because theyre are no bad or good things its just our opinion of how it affects us. Makes us upset us =sin, make us happy= good.. but that doesn't matter because we are just animals and you don't call a lion killing anouther lion murderer or a siner you call it a part of life. Since theres no basic out line of sin in religion because theres no definate right god or gods we cant call anything a sin. It simply is just a part of life whether its bad or good is just opinion.

Its just an Ironic statement when you say god forgives our sins its meant to say he knows we are human and will make mistakes. If gods all powerful and perfect why did he create imperfect creations like a human ? Guess he was drunk those 40 days ha.

 

No.

I agree with the statement that something doesn't need to be proven to exist, to exist. Lets look at the example of the magical pink unicorn, while clearly existent, it goes invisible around humans who don't believe in the softness of it's mane, or the glistening of its fur, so of course no-one has seen it. I just hope that one day I will spot the magical pink unicorn, and he will give me a ride.

Dammit RabidZergling! Being rational in what you believe as a jury and being rational in belief everywhere else have nothing in common. Where do you get off?

It is a shame your ended on such a woefully incorrect example. Of course I can prove that consciousness stems from the brain, but i'm going to need a hammer, and a control group of at least 100 newborn babies.