I'm not sure of a real god, but it is comferting to think that when you die you are taken to heaven where everything is good. but i don't know how somone can dedicate there entire life to somthing that has no real proof in existance. I believe the idea of religion was good but it was taken out of preportion!
God real or not?
Started by
Guest_stubblehamster
, Feb 15 2005 12:22 AM
6399 replies to this topic
#4127
Guest_Zennalathas
Guest_Zennalathas
-
- Guest
Posted 09 April 2007 - 09:59 PM
I'm not clear on what you mean by religion being "taken out of proportion". Would you elaborate? As far as I understand it, religion propagates itself exactly how it was engineered to. It was designed to spread quickly and infest the masses on global scale. I don't mean to ridicule you; I am genuinely curious as to what you think 'went wrong' in religious fervour.I'd also like to remind everyone that even if God may be comforting, that certainly does not prove the existence of him. Believing that it's going to be sunny may be comforting, but that doesn't mean it isn't going to rain.I'm not sure of a real god, but it is comferting to think that when you die you are taken to heaven where everything is good. but i don't know how somone can dedicate there entire life to somthing that has no real proof in existance. I believe the idea of religion was good but it was taken out of preportion!
#4128
Guest_amateursuperhero
Guest_amateursuperhero
-
- Guest
Posted 09 April 2007 - 11:34 PM
I'm going to continue with my blatantly unscientific objections, bear with me. I can't seem to picture a reality without length, width, and depth; but I certainly can picture one without time. Surely though, that is because I have a different understanding of time than you do. In short, I find it difficult to understand how time and duration are the same thing, and how either are the same sort of thing as the other three dimensions. But now we're to the point where I don't even remember why we're talking about time in the first place, and your reply will undoubtedly require paragraph upon paragraph until I understand what I'm missing. Maybe we should just set this discussion aside for another time.What I would argue to be the most scientifically backed rebuttal is as follows: Time, along with space, is a dimension in and of itself through which we all move through. It's important to remember that no matter how many dimensions exist, we exist and move through all of them. They are all, effectively, linked to one an other. That doesn't mean they are all exactly dependent thus, but simply invariably connected. It is not possible to move through just one dimension. General Relativity goes far to explain this: when traveling at speeds close to that of light, time for you passes more slowly than for those who are not traveling this quickly, distances appear to shorten to you while you appear to shrink in the view of others', etc, etc...
That's all fascinating, I'll have to actually take some time to understand all that jazz sometime this summer. Which of Hawking's books would you recommend for someone with only a slightly-better-than-high-school knowledge of physics? Zen, I feel like we've reached the end of any sort of debate over God at this point. We've essentially boiled away both our convinctions to a mutual acknowledgement of the vastly improbable instant nonexistance became existance, and we've just adopted slightly differing inclinations as to what went on exactly. I'd love to keep talking about black holes and such, but I am clearly incapable of challenging the science behind these theories. What I can do, as any religious intellectual can only hope to do, is prove that there is room for God. I think I've essentially done that in our previous arguments, and would just be reiterating myself if I were to do it here in lieu of your bit about black holes. I think maybe now, at least between me and you, we should change the question from "Why must God exist?" to "Is He a logical answer?"In short: black holes. In length now: Black hole research, as is being done by Hawking and his retinue of math-enthused avant guard, is giving insight onto just how universal creation might work. This may seem like an inherent contradiction since black holes are known for the notorious ability at wrecking and destroying things, but bear with me a moment. Simply put, the closer we get to understanding the end point of a black hole: where all the matter and light are compacted into that smallest possible point with highest possible density, the closer we are to understanding the state of the universe at the instant of the Big Bang. Essentially, a black hole's effects in reverse are that of the Big Bang. Now the interesting part of black holes (or at least the most interesting to math-enthused scientists...) is that, at this smallest point with the highest possible density, time ends. Now, that does not mean that at the centre of a black hole time does not exist. It simply ends. After that point, there is nothing; everything comes to an end. This "everything" includes all of our laws of nature, matter, time, emotions, light, etcetera onto infinity. So, when taken to be the inverse effect of the Big Bang, that would suggest that upon the instant of the Big Bang, out laws of nature, time, matter and light were all created. This is how it is seen to have happened. Essentially, black holes are a case study for how the laws of nature came in being...in reverse...What I'm trying to get at here, really, is that the 'brane' theory is not necessary in light of this research. I did not confide in the theory upon stating it in the previous post. I wished simply to illustrate that other, non theistic, postulations were out there, all of which are equally probable/improbable, and all dealing with that very question you've asked: "How do you explain where the various intangible referents you use as the foundation of your arguments come from?" For 'brane' theory, it is simply that they exist outside of time, and need nowhere from which to come from, in that they have always and will always exist. The collision and its explanation in terms of our laws of nature is a mathematical impossibility. One abstract theory of how the collision might be explains is as thus: if the black hole case study shows that existence ends when the highest point of density is reached by the smallest possible point, then it is possible that the 'branes' are made up entirely of this type of matter since it can theoretically exist outside of time. (I am going to pause here to note: it has already been argued in this post...somewhere...that existing outside of time is oxymoronic, but the thought process behind most of this theory seems to be: god can exist outside of time, why can't our theories? I do not advocate this kind of petty reasoning and would stand strongly beside the point of nothing existing outside of time.) The reason they can exist outside of time is because they are dimensions unto themselves, containing the time dimension. So, all of a 'brane' 's matter is made up of the smallest point of highest density. A collision between two points of such matter would be monumental and create more than enough energy to create the universe. The laws of nature as we know them would not apply to the brane's matter as we cannot a) calculate outside of time and b ) the point would probably be less than Plank sized, making the calculation we have meaningless before they begin. At the point of collision the energy would be of application in out laws of nature, and thus their creation would spawn.I hope I've answered some of the point you brought up. I'll admit I've now lost myself, and cannot remember what exactly i was trying to answer...
#4129
Guest_Zennalathas
Guest_Zennalathas
-
- Guest
Posted 10 April 2007 - 11:47 PM
I agree, that perhaps the topic of discussion in relation to god-figure existance should be changed. But, I think we might still wait for Huang to make some sort of post, so that he won't feel too left out. I'm sure his enormous ego won't take kindly to us agreeing upon the debate's end without his say. Regardless, I'm interested on how he might challenge his own argument made from the perspective of science. I have a feeling, though, he may not want to reply and burst the ego bubble.How would you like to start the discussion of God being a logical answer? I, again, am forced to disagree with the statement, and look forawrd to such a debate. It should prove interesting.One more thing before I finish this post: How is it that you can picture a world without time? Could you describe it? I can certainly imagine time slowing or speeding up, as per reletivity, but I fail to be able to imagine a strict lack of time.
#4130
Guest_Wolf Selisa
Guest_Wolf Selisa
-
- Guest
Posted 11 April 2007 - 01:29 AM
Well, my friend says God (the Holy Lord, whatever you wish to speak of him as) doesn't exist. His reason: what about the people living, but starving because of lack of food, bad food, or stolen food, what about people dying at birth, people that live a horrible life being tormented by others, what of those who are extremely unfortunate.If God loves us, why does he put so many of us in pain, giving only some the joy of good life. Why is it that He does not take us from Hell (if it exists) if he loves us? We have little proof he exists, and if there is evidence, it is in my tastes, human-made, a strange coincidence, or a wild goose chase.
#4131
Guest_الِش
Guest_الِش
-
- Guest
Posted 11 April 2007 - 01:41 AM
what about the people living, but starving because of lack of food, bad food, or stolen food, what about people dying at birth, people that live a horrible life being tormented by others, what of those who are extremely unfortunate.I'm neither religious or familiar with the issue, but God does what He feels is best. Like I said, as an atheist, I'm not an expert on this.I do know that in Islam, those who have no idea that the religion is being spread (i.e. someone in 1200s Latin America) will go to heaven so long as they have not committed a major sin for "Allah forgives them for their ignorance". People who know of the religion and aren't Muslims, or people who have never heard of it but have sinned, get sent to hell.We have little proof he existsAnd we have little prove that he doesn't. See the Invisible Pink Unicorn theory.
#4132
Guest_Misea
Guest_Misea
-
- Guest
Posted 11 April 2007 - 01:48 AM
Eh, I don't really think God exists, mainly because the chance of an Entity like God is EXACTLY equal to the chances of Zeus existing, and no offense to the Ancient Greek-Religions, but it's pretty much assumed that Zeus doesn't exist. Yet his chances of existance are the same as God's.Anyhow, it's a controversial topic, and I don't really care about religions.
#4133
38542788
-
- Member
-
- 366 posts
Winged Serpent
Reputation: 2
Neutral
Posted 11 April 2007 - 02:22 AM
That's not what the IPU is about, it's about the inherent conflict in something like a pink (colored) unicorn, which is simultaneously invisible (lacking in color).And demanding negative proof is a logical fallacy.My question would have to be, why does god need to exist?And we have little prove that he doesn't. See the Invisible Pink Unicorn theory.
#4134
Guest_Zennalathas
Guest_Zennalathas
-
- Guest
Posted 11 April 2007 - 02:33 AM
I think it is safe to say that through amateursuperhero and my long posts that, I at least, have shown that God is not a necessity to creation or to life. As far as this topic is concerned, I believe we have moved onto asking whether or not God might be a logical explanation for said creation and life.
#4135
Guest_amateursuperhero
Guest_amateursuperhero
-
- Guest
Posted 11 April 2007 - 06:23 PM
You and your friend seem to be talking about God's capacity to love rather than whether he exists or not; those are two entirely different things. I can say a whole bunch of ridiculous, unqualified statements about something, but even if they are proved paradoxical it doesn't negate the fact that the thing exists.Well, my friend says God (the Holy Lord, whatever you wish to speak of him as) doesn't exist. His reason: what about the people living, but starving because of lack of food, bad food, or stolen food, what about people dying at birth, people that live a horrible life being tormented by others, what of those who are extremely unfortunate.If God loves us, why does he put so many of us in pain, giving only some the joy of good life. Why is it that He does not take us from Hell (if it exists) if he loves us? We have little proof he exists, and if there is evidence, it is in my tastes, human-made, a strange coincidence, or a wild goose chase.
Wow I'd almost forgotten about Huang. I wonder where he's been; he seemed to claim all his pretensions were merely a ploy to lure you back into debate, and now he's gone and disappeared.I agree, that perhaps the topic of discussion in relation to god-figure existance should be changed. But, I think we might still wait for Huang to make some sort of post, so that he won't feel too left out. I'm sure his enormous ego won't take kindly to us agreeing upon the debate's end without his say. Regardless, I'm interested on how he might challenge his own argument made from the perspective of science. I have a feeling, though, he may not want to reply and burst the ego bubble.
The best way to answer this is to first let me describe where I think our discussion has landed us, please correct me if you think otherwise, and anyone else chime in who feels anything I'm saying is out of left field or just plain stupid. It seems to me that we are in agreement there is indeed a causal chain of things in our universe which can be traced back far into the past. We too seem to agree that there must be some sort of explanation for the origins of this chain of causality; and, by the very rules governing causality, this "first cause" must exist outside our current scope of science (As would the idea of eternal regression.) Here is where my opinion begins: Any reply we make to the question about the origin of universal causality is going to be completely theoretical. Sure, we can employ scientific language in describing it, but that doesn't change that this origin must inherently defy rather basic foundations the world of science is built upon. This fact makes science equally vulnerable to attack as any method of addressing the issue of causality, including God. Essentially I am bringing us back to our previous debate on Clifford and James. We are talking about something no one on this planet truly knows anything about. There are two solutions. One can, in attempt to avoid accepting any falsity, simply declare he has no opinion on the matter; or one can, in the attempt to find truth, entertain various different theories about the nature of this origin. If we, as I think you do Zen, subscribe to the latter, than we can not dismiss any theories about this thing we know nothing about. This would include God.How would you like to start the discussion of God being a logical answer? I, again, am forced to disagree with the statement, and look forawrd to such a debate. It should prove interesting.
Well my timeless world would be one where everything is completely motionless for all of eternity. Time, to me, seems to be a description of either a duration which has a beginning and an end, or an entity relative and reliant on motion. If the duration is infinity, and nothing is moving, it would seem to me there is no time. But as I've said, I'm really not basing this on anything other than things I think to myself while watching Bill and Ted.One more thing before I finish this post: How is it that you can picture a world without time? Could you describe it? I can certainly imagine time slowing or speeding up, as per reletivity, but I fail to be able to imagine a strict lack of time.
#4136
Guest_Calvin Luther
Guest_Calvin Luther
-
- Guest
Posted 11 April 2007 - 06:27 PM
Because what's the point of living if there's nothing to do after you die? If this is all there is, atheists must be very depressed.My question would have to be, why does god need to exist?
#4137
Guest_amateursuperhero
Guest_amateursuperhero
-
- Guest
Posted 11 April 2007 - 06:56 PM
Whether or not something is true has nothing to do with how it makes you feel.Because what's the point of living if there's nothing to do after you die? If this is all there is, atheists must be very depressed.
#4138
Guest_Calvin Luther
Guest_Calvin Luther
-
- Guest
Posted 11 April 2007 - 08:11 PM
So, what? Atheists just ignore that their lives are pointless?
#4139
Guest_amateursuperhero
Guest_amateursuperhero
-
- Guest
Posted 11 April 2007 - 08:25 PM
I think that believing if you do what the bible says you'll live in eternal paradise and if you don't then you're doomed to eternal damnation is a rather silly and unfounded way of giving one's life meaning, and that's coming from a believer. I think both atheists and smart believers view the point of human life as some kind of human transcendence, the former describing it through science and the latter through divinity. I don't see how the purpose of life being to earn a seat in heaven or be condemned to one in hell can be attractive to anyone. Living in the pursuit of that which comes after death seems to drain life of meaning more than anything atheists have been saying, in my opinion anyway.
#4140
Guest_Zennalathas
Guest_Zennalathas
-
- Guest
Posted 11 April 2007 - 08:28 PM
Your view on what makes life have a point is grossly scewed. If the only point of living is to die and make it to heaven, I'd say that all religious minded people must be very depressed. Think about what you've said: religious minded folk live to die. That, I would consider, is depressing. Further, is that all you live for? Do you not live to fall in love, make friends, forge relationships, make an impact on those around, have lots of sex? Must I go on? If you're simply living to die, you've essentially neglected these other wondrous things, and I'd say you're the one living a pointless life. Also, under the assumption that God may exist, he does not exist simply to give life meaning. We have all ready laid out that he exists as a Creator, but would not be required to stick around and watch his creation with a policing eye. The assumption that he exists to give your life meaning is nihlistic, and I urge you to go and get a hobby.Sorry amateursuperhero, I have to go to a meeting with the head RA in a few minutes, so I don't have time to adress your post. I'll be back later on to do that though. I promise.So, what? Atheists just ignore that their lives are pointless?
Edited by Zennalathas, 11 April 2007 - 08:30 PM.
#4141
Guest_Calvin Luther
Guest_Calvin Luther
-
- Guest
Posted 11 April 2007 - 09:55 PM
I think the pursuit of avoiding hell in preference to heaven is a good one.I think that believing if you do what the bible says you'll live in eternal paradise and if you don't then you're doomed to eternal damnation is a rather silly and unfounded way of giving one's life meaning, and that's coming from a believer. I think both atheists and smart believers view the point of human life as some kind of human transcendence, the former describing it through science and the latter through divinity. I don't see how the purpose of life being to earn a seat in heaven or be condemned to one in hell can be attractive to anyone. Living in the pursuit of that which comes after death seems to drain life of meaning more than anything atheists have been saying, in my opinion anyway.
No, religous folk don't live to die, they live to do what God says. While this sounds like a bad thing, it probably is better than the multiple cases of STD's you'll contract from lots of sex.God doesn't exist to give our life meaning. He doesn't exist because we need Him. We exist because of Him, and we need Him the same way we need our parents. If He simply left us to our own devices, we would be in deep trouble.Oh, and I do have a hobby. Why would I be here on this website if I didn't?Your view on what makes life have a point is grossly scewed. If the only point of living is to die and make it to heaven, I'd say that all religious minded people must be very depressed. Think about what you've said: religious minded folk live to die. That, I would consider, is depressing. Further, is that all you live for? Do you not live to fall in love, make friends, forge relationships, make an impact on those around, have lots of sex? Must I go on? If you're simply living to die, you've essentially neglected these other wondrous things, and I'd say you're the one living a pointless life. Also, under the assumption that God may exist, he does not exist simply to give life meaning. We have all ready laid out that he exists as a Creator, but would not be required to stick around and watch his creation with a policing eye. The assumption that he exists to give your life meaning is nihlistic, and I urge you to go and get a hobby.Sorry amateursuperhero, I have to go to a meeting with the head RA in a few minutes, so I don't have time to adress your post. I'll be back later on to do that though. I promise.
#4142
Guest_amateursuperhero
Guest_amateursuperhero
-
- Guest
Posted 11 April 2007 - 10:12 PM
The problem I, and it seems Zen, have with what you are saying is that your argument is essentially "God exists because he gives life meaning." That's how I'm reading it anyway. But now you are saying that your life's meaning has no bearing on whether or not God exists, so I'm confused.Let me attempt to guide the discussion. Answer these two question Gascmarki, so we can get a better understanding of what we're all talking about: If we were to show you that life could have mean independent of God, would you still believe? and if we set aside whether or not heaven and hell are real places, do you still believe? I think if you answer these questions it'd be easier for discussion to continue, I think me and Zen are attacking you based more on our assumptions about what you've said rather than what you've actually stated.No, religous folk don't live to die, they live to do what God says. While this sounds like a bad thing, it probably is better than the multiple cases of STD's you'll contract from lots of sex.God doesn't exist to give our life meaning. He doesn't exist because we need Him. We exist because of Him, and we need Him the same way we need our parents. If He simply left us to our own devices, we would be in deep trouble.Oh, and I do have a hobby. Why would I be here on this website if I didn't?
It's chill man, I don't think you're pulling a huang or anything ;]Sorry amateursuperhero, I have to go to a meeting with the head RA in a few minutes, so I don't have time to adress your post. I'll be back later on to do that though. I promise.
Edited by amateursuperhero, 11 April 2007 - 10:13 PM.
#4143
Guest_Calvin Luther
Guest_Calvin Luther
-
- Guest
Posted 11 April 2007 - 10:59 PM
Well I'm offended. Mostly out of spite, but I'm still offended.Oh, and superhero, sorry about any confusion. My point is, for the atheist, their life has no meaning. For a religious person, there is one.Oh, and my view on God's existence is this: God exists whether I think so or not. Even if I stop thinking that, he still will. It doesn't make much sense, but then, neither do I.I'm not a believer, heh.Sorry guys, but I'm not trying to offend anyone.
#4144
Guest_الِش
Guest_الِش
-
- Guest
Posted 11 April 2007 - 11:03 PM
My point is, for the atheist, their life has no meaning.Well, if you think about it that way...In the fact that when we die, we've left this world, and that there's no coming back.However, the world continues around us, and we know this. So we can have a meaning.
#4145
38542788
-
- Member
-
- 366 posts
Winged Serpent
Reputation: 2
Neutral
Posted 12 April 2007 - 12:01 AM
I'm assuming that you're talking the big bang, right?Regardless of what the "first cause" may be, or even whether there is a first cause (assuming that the cyclic model is correct), how does any of the possibly ending of the universe reconcile with any monotheistic religion? Whether it's heat death, the big crunch, or the big rip, none of it would can fit with the prophecies put forth by any religion that I know of.And this may be a bit off topic, but wouldn't a final observer be as important as a first cause? In any possible end case, let's say, the heat death of the universe, there would be no possible way to obtain any usable information about the past because no observation can be made in a world where the entropy has increased to infinity. As you mentioned, the world would be timeless (no potential energy gradient to power any movement), and in such the state, all of past existence would in effect never have existed in the first place.It seems to me that we are in agreement there is indeed a causal chain of things in our universe which can be traced back far into the past. We too seem to agree that there must be some sort of explanation for the origins of this chain of causality; and, by the very rules governing causality, this "first cause" must exist outside our current scope of science (As would the idea of eternal regression.) Here is where my opinion begins: Any reply we make to the question about the origin of universal causality is going to be completely theoretical. Sure, we can employ scientific language in describing it, but that doesn't change that this origin must inherently defy rather basic foundations the world of science is built upon. This fact makes science equally vulnerable to attack as any method of addressing the issue of causality, including God. Essentially I am bringing us back to our previous debate on Clifford and James. We are talking about something no one on this planet truly knows anything about. There are two solutions. One can, in attempt to avoid accepting any falsity, simply declare he has no opinion on the matter; or one can, in the attempt to find truth, entertain various different theories about the nature of this origin. If we, as I think you do Zen, subscribe to the latter, than we can not dismiss any theories about this thing we know nothing about. This would include God. Well my timeless world would be one where everything is completely motionless for all of eternity. Time, to me, seems to be a description of either a duration which has a beginning and an end, or an entity relative and reliant on motion. If the duration is infinity, and nothing is moving, it would seem to me there is no time. But as I've said, I'm really not basing this on anything other than things I think to myself while watching Bill and Ted.
I'm assuming that you're a Christian...but why do you even believe in the existence of hell? Hell is an artifact incorporated from pagan religions, try to find the word in the old testament sometimes and see how many times it comes up.I'm not quite sure why you're mentioning STDs...I'm also not particularly sure why you would want to exist solely for the will of a non-human entity...And I think that the hobby question was operating under this line of logic:live to die---->nihilist---->has no hobbiesI think the pursuit of avoiding hell in preference to heaven is a good one.No, religous folk don't live to die, they live to do what God says. While this sounds like a bad thing, it probably is better than the multiple cases of STD's you'll contract from lots of sex.God doesn't exist to give our life meaning. He doesn't exist because we need Him. We exist because of Him, and we need Him the same way we need our parents. If He simply left us to our own devices, we would be in deep trouble.Oh, and I do have a hobby. Why would I be here on this website if I didn't?
That would be a problem, wouldn't it?It doesn't make much sense, but then, neither do I.
#4146
Guest_amateursuperhero
Guest_amateursuperhero
-
- Guest
Posted 12 April 2007 - 02:22 AM
Well we haven't really been talking about God in the biblical sense, we've shifted almost entirely to a more diest God-figure. My point is that all of these things, the big bang, the big crunch- whatever theory you want to throw out there is incredibly improbable, purely theoretical ideas. A God-theory is also one of these enormously imporbable, purely theoretical ideas, and deserves to be addressed with the same seriousness.I'm assuming that you're talking the big bang, right?Regardless of what the "first cause" may be, or even whether there is a first cause (assuming that the cyclic model is correct), how does any of the possibly ending of the universe reconcile with any monotheistic religion? Whether it's heat death, the big crunch, or the big rip, none of it would can fit with the prophecies put forth by any religion that I know of.
That almost sounds like an argument for God, sir.And this may be a bit off topic, but wouldn't a final observer be as important as a first cause? In any possible end case, let's say, the heat death of the universe, there would be no possible way to obtain any usable information about the past because no observation can be made in a world where the entropy has increased to infinity. As you mentioned, the world would be timeless (no potential energy gradient to power any movement), and in such the state, all of past existence would in effect never have existed in the first place.
My beliefs exactly. I'm church-going Catholic and I think hell is a bunch of bullshit. Any suggestions of an afterlife, heaven or hell, present in the Bible are purely Greek-influenced. They aren't present at all until Second Maccabees, which is a later book in the Hebrew Bible.I'm assuming that you're a Christian...but why do you even believe in the existence of hell? Hell is an artifact incorporated from pagan religions, try to find the word in the old testament sometimes and see how many times it comes up.
#4147
Guest_gatewaygamer
Guest_gatewaygamer
-
- Guest
Posted 12 April 2007 - 02:41 AM
If there is a god we must be Comity Central to him by now.Wonders why he let it come this far and why after going threw all the trouble of setting up complex ecosystems he put something such as man to muss up the works.
#4148
Guest_Juztin
Guest_Juztin
-
- Guest
Posted 12 April 2007 - 03:31 AM
I beleive in god but Im not like really into it, just something to keep in the back of my mind.
#4149
38542788
-
- Member
-
- 366 posts
Winged Serpent
Reputation: 2
Neutral
Posted 12 April 2007 - 03:36 AM
There's pretty solid evidence for the big bang, that's why it's the most popular theory out there about creation (there are other scientific theories, not with the same amount of evidence). For example, the big bang theory predicted that there will be background cosmological radiation, and decades later, this was verified through observation (after better equipment were developed that could measure such things). This isn't really something that you can do to judge the existence of god.And from what you said about god being an agent that's completely foreign to this universe, why should we care about it's existence at all? After all, according to relativity (which, if you remove the math, rests on some very simple logical proofs), that which cannot be observed, effectively does not exist.Well we haven't really been talking about God in the biblical sense, we've shifted almost entirely to a more diest God-figure. My point is that all of these things, the big bang, the big crunch- whatever theory you want to throw out there is incredibly improbable, purely theoretical ideas. A God-theory is also one of these enormously imporbable, purely theoretical ideas, and deserves to be addressed with the same seriousness.
Just a brain fart actually, I could have been arguing for a lot of things. Like the wheel of time, for example.That almost sounds like an argument for God, sir.
#4150
Guest_lxc789
Guest_lxc789
-
- Guest
Posted 12 April 2007 - 03:57 AM
I was brought up in a devout Catholic family, but I always had my doubts about God and how there is no evidence to support his existence. Just in the past couple of months I really got interested in this whole debate and bought and read Richard Dawkin's The God Delusion, Sam Harris' Letter to a Christian Nation, and Sam Harris' The End of Faith. After reading these and thinking about the issues that arose, I came to the conclusion that not only is there no God, religion is the main reason why the world is in such ****ing terrible shape. People then question me on the basis of evolution and how 'random' acts could spontaneoulsly generate species that we see today. The first thing I counter with is how they can explain Intelligent Design, Creationism, or that God created everything. There are so many deviations from the path, and so many things about animals that have no explantion besides evolution. Why do some species of snake have vestigal limbs? If God is omnipotent then He should have known that an error like that would arise in His plans. He didnt, because there is no He. There are numerous other imperfections in all the species in the world. If God created everything, why would He allow the trachea and esophogus(sp) to be seperated by a flimsy flap of skin? Hundreds, if not thousands of people die every year by choking on something. Wouldn't the Creator notice this imperfection and do something about it so that his divine beings will not die just because some food 'went down the wrong tube'? There are so many more reasons as to why the thought of God is delusional and idiotic, and to base one's life off of myths that are 2000+ years older is ludicris. If some one were to tell you that they believed in Zeus and the other polytheistic Gods, wouldn't one doubt their beliefs and even classify the believer as insane due to the fact that we know now the sun is not pulled around the earth by a god, but rather Earth rotates, and that creates night and day. Some day, hopefully soon, Christians, Muslims, Jews. and all faiths will succumb to scientific fact, just as Zeus, Apollo and the other Greek and Roman gods have.By the way, I am pleased to see that this topic is doing so well. I do enjoy talking about religion to devout fundamentalists, religous moderate, and agnostics and atheists. I try to see how religious people can still beleive in God, but I see don't see eye to eye just as they don't see eye to eye with my stance on there being no God. Whatever I may say, I do not mean to hurt, or force my opinion on them, I just like when people see both sides of the stories, then choose on their own (just as I have) whether or not God exists.Ah...one more thing. For the person who said " My point is, for the atheist, their life has no meaning." Even if this were true, having no meaning is more worthwhile than wasting years of prayer and devotion to a mythical figure who will never hear these prayers or appreciate the devotion due to the fact that there is no such being. And as far as atheists having no meaning to life, how can you say that. The whole practice behind atheism, is to make the best of life on Earth, because after that, there is nothing. At least we don't waste away our life preparing for the afterlife. We live now, not making amends for things we did in order to avoid a terrible afterlife. If I am wrong in my beliefs and I am casted in eternal damnation, I will still be happy that I made the best of my life, and did not do frivilous things in order to attain a great afterlife. So, on the contrary, the atheist will lead a better life than the devout christian who, every minute of every day, makes plans for the non-existent after life, while the atheist makes the most of his life and does not worry about the pretense of an 'angry God' The religious live to die. Does that sound like the kind of life anyone would want to lead?
Edited by lxc789, 12 April 2007 - 04:01 AM.
