View Full Version : best arguments against religion (no theists)
hello everyone, I have heard a lot of good arguments against religion here, and even have a few of my own, but I would like to have a list of them I can reference.
so, I would like people to post their best logical arguments against religion/god here.
theists need not post here, this is not the place for debate, this is for the gathering of ideas from atheists only.
the ones that pop into my mind are:
--how can got grant prayers without infringing on free will? if you pray for a certain outcome, then people would not have the free will to do otherwise.
--how can evil exist with a good and omnipotent god?
--god cannot be totally omniscient without our futures being predetermined.
--an omniscient and good god has only one choice in any situation, which is to do the most good. therefore god has no free will.
--if god kept you out of heaven for following the wrong religion then god would be immoral for not showing you the right way, and since there are so many religion, either god does not care if you worship, or god is immoral.
--if jesus was the son of the same god as the old testament, then why are parts of the old testament considered wrong, while we follow the new testament. (referring to the death penalty for those who work on the sabbath, dishonor their parents, ect)
thats all I have for now. and once again, only atheist/agnostics should respond in order to keep arguments from breaking out here.
§outh§tar
07-24-05, 02:37 AM
the examples you bring up pertain to specific (or common) theologies. You haven't really argued against religion. Unless you weren't talking about religion in general.
- Religion is a hand me down preserved from generation to generation. It's built upon. Kind of like folklore or whatever.
one_raven
07-24-05, 03:51 AM
I have heard a lot of good arguments against religion here, and even have a few of my own, but I would like to have a list of them I can reference.
I am not a theist, but I have to say that those are some pretty weak arguments you have there.
Not only are they not arguments against religion itself, rather arguments against the validity of specific doctrine/theology (Christian, apparently) like §outh§tar said...
But they aren't even very solid arguments againt Christian doctrine.
What, specifically are you looking for?
Are you looking to refute Christian claims?
Are you looking to demonstrate to people why they do not need religion, and it can actually do more harm than good?
Are you looking to attack the religious in debates or "set them free" from the shackles of religion?
What's your aim and goal?
Clockwood
07-24-05, 04:05 AM
No good has ever come out of religion that couldn't be gained by some simple enlightened self interest. Endless rivers of blood are spilled needlessly in the name of one god or another, only growing deeper as time wears on. Should one exist, any good god will have a little understanding of the wisdom in ignoring his existence. Howabout those?
Cato, your arguments are all based on ignorance of Christianity.
It's easy to prance around with strawmen.
Cottontop3000
07-24-05, 11:19 AM
Cato, your arguments are all based on ignorance of Christianity.
It's easy to prance around with strawmen.
Cato, listen to water. She has all the right answers. Only she. Never doubt it.
She, and only she, is the real god of this world.
P.S. I notice some ignorant christians have posted here anyway.
Cato, listen to water. She has all the right answers. Only she. Never doubt it.
She, and only she, is the real god of this world.
It doesn't matter, what she says is just her opinion, like this is mine. This is not an absolute truth (neither is that)
What's your aim and goal?
sorry for not being specific. I just want any general argument against god/religion. I prefer ones that can't be defeated logically, but just good examples of, say, holy wars that have killed a lot of people, or alternatives to religion, or anything really. as long as it is against religion/god and on a solid foundation.
the reason I only posted ones against christanity was because those are all I know. I will gladly take arguments against other religions, and religion itself.
p.s. please, if you are not going to post an argument, or a question about what I am looking for, please don't post.
§outh§tar
07-24-05, 02:11 PM
Well here's a little direction for the thread:
You can't really argue against religion without assuming that another world perspective is superior. That being said, it would be more efficient here to argue for instead of against.
All religions have one thing in common – a conviction that some/all aspects of the universe are caused and/or directed by non-natural phenomena. We do not know if this is true or not but to claim it true is without foundation and to attempt to convince others this it is true is irresponsible. Without any precedent for non-natural phenomena and without any factual basis religious assertions are nothing but pure fantasy.
Our major problem becomes one of using reasoned, logical arguments to thwart arguments that do not use those rules. Religionists do not begin from a logical position and by their irrational assertions we can see that reasoned arguments will not or are unlikely to appeal to them, they would not be religionists otherwise.
Many religionists understand this and some create levels of expertise to counteract this – in Christianity these experts are known as apologetics. This discipline attempts to use logical “sounding” arguments and tactics to rationalize Christian assertions. Note that rationalization is the action of making something irrational appear rational, but be aware that the underlying assertion remains irrational. These arguments can be quite tortuous and on the surface quite convincing to the unaware and the gullible.
There is only one position to set before the religionist – prove your assertions according to the best methods that mankind has yet devised and proved – i.e. the scientific method. The religionist cannot do this and will argue against science.
What then are our choices? Continue to battle for better education in terms of critical thinking. Until religionists begin to think clearly then no reasoned arguments will be effective.
So cato, that is probaby not what you are looking for but to prepare arguments assuming that non-natural phenomena might be possible is to lose half the argument.
In the end the best argument against religion is - there is no evidence for religious phenomena - prove it if you believe otherwise - religionists have been trying for millenia and are still failing.
§outh§tar
07-24-05, 02:40 PM
Cris,
What is 'natural phenomena'?
(I don't think arguing is worth much. What needs to happen is keep the children from being indoctrinated and that gives us chance to have a new generation of freethinkers who will agree better with rationalism)
let me worry about weather or not they will work, I just want the arguments.
In the end the best argument against religion is - there is no evidence for religious phenomena - prove it if you believe otherwise - religionists have been trying for millenia and are still failing.
the thing is, nobody cares about evidence, otherwise they would not be religious in the first place. what I need are ways to make people stop and think about their religion and, hopefully, realize just how impossible their god is. like the logical paradoxes I posted earlier. or at least strong reason why they should give up their religion.
scorpius
07-24-05, 05:12 PM
the thing is, nobody cares about evidence, otherwise they would not be religious in the first place. what I need are ways to make people stop and think about their religion and, hopefully, realize just how impossible their god is. like the logical paradoxes I posted earlier. or at least strong reason why they should give up their religion.
you could ask them why they follow THEIR particular religion and not some other one.why is theirs The True one?
so, I would like people to post their best logical arguments against religion/god here.
God doesn't comply with what I want god to be, therefore, I do not find it agreeable that this god should exist, therefore, god does not exist.
Cogito, ergo mundus talis est.
Cogito, ergo deus talis est.
We all know Descartes "proof of the existance of God" is his weakest meditation. The rest were pretty lame but that one was by far the silliest! Didn't uh.. some guy named Kant refute most of that purist rationalist silliness? :D
OliverJ
07-24-05, 09:24 PM
Cato, your arguments are all based on ignorance of Christianity.
It's easy to prance around with strawmen.
Ok brother then enlighten me will you please, heres my arguement. I have but just one , are you ready.
An "omnipotent" creator would not make a mistake. And then REPENT for it.
(thats the whole Noah and the flood story, Im sure you know it)
It actually laughable.
Now enlighten me please.
superluminal
07-24-05, 09:39 PM
Theists are stupid.
Most reasoned logical arguments presented within these forums clearly reveals there a lack of evidence to suggest supernatural phenomenae exist, let alone control destinies.
It's not the arguments that are the problem - it is the necessity for theists to oppose and reject them.
SouthStar,
What is 'natural phenomena'?How about anything that results from the laws of physics.
Theists are stupid
I like that one =]
p.s. donate.
Christians, for example, who are opposed to each others views of their beliefs and who claim to have 'knowledge' of god, that which must be the same to all who believe, show evidence that their beliefs can only be self-induced from the ideals of others and not from a supernatural being.
If Scriptures, which many of them base their beliefs and cannot possibly be flawed in its content and presentation if it is the word of god, can evoke such opposing views, it too must be the ideals of others and not that of a supernatural being.
It seems there is evidence in irrationality - what a concept! :eek:
superluminal
07-25-05, 01:25 PM
cato:
“ Theists are stupid ”
I like that one =]
p.s. donate.
I was only being slightly facetious.
stu·pid (stū'pĭd, styū'-)
adj., -er, -est.
Slow to learn or understand; obtuse.
Here is a group of people (theists) who have been following the same dogma and childish assertions essentially unchallenged for millenia, in the face of actual, provable science and simple observation.
I call this willful stupidity.
Just read the bible for actual, provable statements to support my theory.
P.S. Done!
jayleew
07-25-05, 01:33 PM
Ok brother then enlighten me will you please, heres my arguement. I have but just one , are you ready.
An "omnipotent" creator would not make a mistake. And then REPENT for it.
(thats the whole Noah and the flood story, Im sure you know it)
It actually laughable.
Now enlighten me please.
There are example after example in the Bible that show that God is not omnipotent. This Noah story is one of those. The problem with Christianity is that people who are born again get so "high" off of the Holy Spirit, that they go off blurbing stuff that they ought not to without even reading the whole Bible, saying that they understand God. What fools. Christians need to sharpen up on their apologetics and use their brain cells for a change (as well as the Bible), and that is exactly what the new generation of believers are doing. Many twenty-somethings and younger are looking for more concrete philosophical arguments to support their beliefs. It is exciting to see them think. They put adults to shame.
As far as the omnipotent thing, as I said, the Bible clearly shows God without having it. At least that is the only logical assumption that we can make. However, he appears to have it, so it is mistook for omnipotence. He has the ability to look at your past, look at what you are thinking right now, and tell you where you will end up if you do not change your thinking, and Joe Schmoe (your neighbor) doesn't change his thinking to influence you, as well as every person in your life. And this telepathic ability combined with his infinite intellect, can determine the hour of your death because he knows everyone's thoughts.
Example: He knows that Harry Smith has a problem with alcohol and will end up driving drunk the day that his wife (who is not happy with him and is from a broken home) will leave him, thus hitting you broadside and killing you because you have done all you can for God and your race is finished. After that, Harry Smith wakes up in prison and regrets his decision to drink so much, because he is a good person and finds God through the ordeal.
Sorry I posted, sorry i'm off topic, just wanted to clarify God's omnipotence. It doesn't take a genius to read the bible stories and know that he is not omnipotent by definition.
jayleew
07-25-05, 01:42 PM
Christians, for example, who are opposed to each others views of their beliefs and who claim to have 'knowledge' of god, that which must be the same to all who believe, show evidence that their beliefs can only be self-induced from the ideals of others and not from a supernatural being.
If Scriptures, which many of them base their beliefs and cannot possibly be flawed in its content and presentation if it is the word of god, can evoke such opposing views, it too must be the ideals of others and not that of a supernatural being.
It seems there is evidence in irrationality - what a concept! :eek:
If you didn't read the chapter on arithmetic calculations, but you read the chapter on algebra and say that 1a+1a=2a^2 and I say 1a+1a=2a because I have read the first chapter, who is correct? THere is so much opposition because people forget, or don't read all of the Bible in context.
If you didn't read the chapter on arithmetic calculations, but you read the chapter on algebra and say that 1a+1a=2a^2 and I say 1a+1a=2a because I have read the first chapter, who is correct?
Ok, if you then showed me how 1a+1a=2a, and as a rational person I could do nothing more but agree, because it is in fact correct, then we have both agreed on the same thing.
But even so, your example argues rational concepts that can be tested with results and agree upon by everyone else, while the concepts argued by theists cannot. In other words, you're arguing apples and oranges.
THere is so much opposition because people forget, or don't read all of the Bible in context.
context, a theists favorite thing in the whole world, because nobody can prove exactly what, say, jesus meant, so they can make up a meaning as long as in resembles something in the context.
take this as an example where context blows up in theist's faces. example:
Matthew 15:4"For God commanded, saying, Honor thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death."
the context here is that the pharisees was becoming more liberal, and not killing any child that "curseth" their parent. so jesus said that no matter what tradition is, you must still kill any child that "curseth" their parents. I head children curse their parents all the time, according to your religion, I should kill them.
jayleew
07-26-05, 12:25 PM
context, a theists favorite thing in the whole world, because nobody can prove exactly what, say, jesus meant, so they can make up a meaning as long as in resembles something in the context.
take this as an example where context blows up in theist's faces. example:
Matthew 15:4"For God commanded, saying, Honor thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death."
the context here is that the pharisees was becoming more liberal, and not killing any child that "curseth" their parent. so jesus said that no matter what tradition is, you must still kill any child that "curseth" their parents. I head children curse their parents all the time, according to your religion, I should kill them.
You missed the start of the verse where Jesus said, "You have heard Moses say..." That clearly shows the law in bounds with Jewish law.
You are right, according to Jewish law, they should be killed. Jesus fullfilled the law, so gentiles (or Jews who accept Jesus) are not under it, and if we keep some of the Jewish/God's laws, we should keep all of it, Jesus said. But, that is not possible for man without Christ.
As you may know, Jewish/God's laws for his people are far stricter than the rules for the bride of Christ, which are only two laws: Love thy God with all of yourself, and your neighbor as yourself. A child who curses his parents today, has the chance to be redeemed by repenting and never cursing again...that does not excuse him (he/she will pay the consequences of the parent and/or God), but he will be given a place in heaven.
what fucked up version are you reading? I looked up 4 different versions and none of them mention moses, they all refer to god directly. therefore, jesus would prefer you to kill childeren who curse their parents. moreover, even if jesus said hat moses said it, he would not critisize the pharisees for doing what was right.
KennyJC
07-27-05, 07:47 AM
Well the thing I normally say
"There might be a God and there might not be. Even IF (big if) there is one, its most likely that ideas generated by 'religions' are so far off the mark... and the truth is, no human being or religion knows a single thing about the God they claim to know so well."
jayleew
07-29-05, 04:59 PM
what fucked up version are you reading? I looked up 4 different versions and none of them mention moses, they all refer to god directly. therefore, jesus would prefer you to kill childeren who curse their parents. moreover, even if jesus said hat moses said it, he would not critisize the pharisees for doing what was right.
My point was is that was Jewish law, which was delivered by Moses, from God. We cannot sit here and presume to know exactly what Moses meant. We do not know if Moses interpreted God to mean this and actually he meant that. That is why Jesus came and set everything straight. Jesus also said that him without sin may cast the first stone. In this day of grace, we are not to kill those who sin, including children.
We cannot sit here and presume to know exactly what Moses meant.
but we are to presume to know exactly what jesus meant?
That is why Jesus came and set everything straight.
yeah, I guess that would be why he said the pharisees should not have stopped the death penalty for those who curse their parents.
Jesus also said that him without sin may cast the first stone.
what does that have to do with it? that was a case of adultery. moreover, he never said it was wrong to stone her, he merely said that a sin-free person should be the one to do it. after they all left, he forgave her with the caveat that she would never do it again. nowhere in that story did he say it was wrong to stone her, he merely found a way to avoid taking a hard stance either way. I guess jesus was the first politician =]
Hapsburg
07-30-05, 12:50 AM
http://www.hello-cthulhu.com/images/comics/en/017.gif
:p
Here we go...for all you:
POLITICALLY INCORRECT GUIDE SCIENCE (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/089526031X/ref=pd_luc_23_lc_ax56_r2c1_a1_t/103-5350393-6279060?v=glance&s=books)
superluminal
07-30-05, 10:15 PM
I love it. This is clearly an anti-science book:
Covers subjects spanning evolution, stem cell research, abortion,
HIV/AIDS, global warming,and cloning to help you tune up your baloney detector to expose the liberal, anti-religious propagnada we're being fed.
"baloney detector" or baloney detection kit" was coined by Carl Sagan and is used by scientifically literate skeptics everywhere. Can't the fundies come up with their own phrase?
Dullards.
Hapsburg
07-30-05, 11:36 PM
The pic above is a cooler and easier arguement.
:p
superluminal
07-30-05, 11:39 PM
What is that thing?
speaking of Carl Sagan, anyone want his book "demon haunted world, science as a candle in the dark?" I will give it (free) to any religious person, provided they pay the shipping. I am not really the type of person to read books twice, unless I am looking something up.
I am sure that book lawdog posted is full of half truths and spin to fool the weak minded. however, I would like to read it just to know how much bull is actually in it.
p.s. lol, I just looked the book up on findbookprices.com, and there were NO used copies. I am glad there were not enough stupid people out there to shell out money for that crap.
superluminal
07-30-05, 11:44 PM
I've read my copy of DHW twice. And yes, I'll bet the above book is a hoot.
Hapsburg
07-30-05, 11:44 PM
What is that thing?
Cthulhu. It's from that one site, The Misadventures of Hello Cthulhu. It's, like, a crossover of The Cthulhu mythos universe and the Hello Kitty universe. It's funny! :D
Cottontop3000
07-31-05, 12:21 AM
The pic above is a cooler and easier arguement.
:p
Why don't I see this pic? Is it due to my "adblock" or some other setting that I have set a certain way? I never see the pics or cartoons, etc. that people post. Do one of you know what I need to do? :mad:
phoenix2634
07-31-05, 02:40 AM
Back to this reading in context thing for a moment, Cato, you really should try reading Mathew 15:1-20. If that is too much reading try just reading Mathew 15:3-4.
Here's verse 3 for those who are interested: "But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
Going into verse 4 what is the Commandment of God and what is the tradition of the Pharisees? Well, gee, God's commandment is Honour thy father and mother, what is the Pharisees tradition?, He that curseth father or mother let him die the death.
This line of reasoning is further illustrated when you read verse 9, "but in vain they do worship me, teaching doctrines the commandments of men," which is a fancy way of saying that the Pharisees are teaching as doctrine their commandments and laws. Before you protest this, reading even further particularly verse 13: "But he answered and said, every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, they shall be rooted up." This was in response to Jesus disciples telling Him that the Pharisees were offended by what was previously said. And in verse 14, Jesus tells his disciples to leave the Pharisees alone, as they are "...blind leaders of the blind, and if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch."
Continuing on, Peter asks for clarification of this parable, and paraphrasing verses 18-20, those things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and those things defile the man. For out of the heart comes evil thoughts, murders, adultries, false witness, blasphemies, that's why it is not hypocritical to eat bread with unwashed hands.
Anyhow, that is the context of Mathew 15:4, and why your implication is out of context. And that is why theists get pissed off when you quote the bible out of context.
Well, good luck in your quest for the best arguements against religion.
superluminal
07-31-05, 10:42 AM
Cotton,
Under "Edit Options" on your forum control panel, make sure you have the "show images" box checked.
Is your browser set to show images? (if you see images on other sites, it is).
to phoenix2634:
’Wherefore
also do ye transgress the command of God because of your
(4) tradition? for God did command, saying, Honour thy father
and mother; and, He who is speaking evil of father or mother –
(5) let him die the death;
(4)For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ a
and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is
to be put to death.’
(4)For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He
that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
I don't know what fucked up bible you are reading, because these three seem to spell things out quite clearly that the command of god was to put those who curse their parents to death. like I said before, the Pharisees had become more liberal about the death penalty for this particular crime, and jesus criticized them for it.
Cottontop3000
07-31-05, 02:25 PM
Cotton,
Under "Edit Options" on your forum control panel, make sure you have the "show images" box checked. Yep, it's checked and still no images.
Is your browser set to show images? (if you see images on other sites, it is).Yep, it's set that way too. I think I did something a while back to keep these from showing up, but I can't remember what I did. Any other ideas? :)
EDIT: OOPS, I've got them. I looked up instead of down. I've got my options set to show posts in the opposite order from Hapsburg. The change I had to make was in my browser under "Tools, Options, Web Features." I had the check box on for images, but I also had the box for "from originating web site only" checked, so it wasn't showing images from posters. After unchecking that, it allowed Hapsburg's picture. Thanks Superluminal.
Sorry for being off topic here. :(
superluminal
07-31-05, 03:52 PM
Cool.
so, anybody got any arguments? or are we talking about display issues now.
so, anybody got any arguments? or are we talking about display issues now.Against religion? Nope - it's merely a form of self-help for those that need it.
Okay - at the root of the majority of religions is some unproven and unprovable stuff that you need to be irrational to actually believe in - but the actual benefits of religion (peace of mind, comfort, focus etc) for many are there to be seen.
Now, arguments AGAINST the roots of the religion are another thing entirely... and you only need to look at the other threads for that.
Most don't DISPROVE the existence of god - just regurgitate that there is NO EVIDENCE for the existence.
comisaru
08-01-05, 12:04 PM
so, anybody got any arguments? or are we talking about display issues now.
How became someone a believer ? Is teached by family or society. If not, would he became a believer ?
Or let's say you were born in China, or in Amazon jungle. What should be your religion now ? And if your tribe will conquer the world after 2000 years ? What religion will be predominant ?
And why are so many religions ? Wich one should I believe ? If you accept that others religions are wrong, so yours is too from the others point of view.
When were created allmost religions ? In antiquity. By the that time people. What else they did and what else they wrote ? It's a good percentage of believe what they left for memories, not only religion books ?
spidergoat
08-01-05, 12:08 PM
The best argument against religion is that it has been the driving philosophy of the last 2000 years, and humanity is in the same crappy state. It doesn't work.
and you only need to look at the other threads for that. gee thanks, because I started this thread to compile arguments just so I can ignore it and hunt through thousands of posts looking for them. wow, you are so helpful.
at least the person who, obviously, does not know very good english gave it a shot.
jayleew
08-01-05, 04:00 PM
but we are to presume to know exactly what jesus meant?
Point taken.
what does that have to do with it? that was a case of adultery. moreover, he never said it was wrong to stone her, he merely said that a sin-free person should be the one to do it. after they all left, he forgave her with the caveat that she would never do it again. nowhere in that story did he say it was wrong to stone her, he merely found a way to avoid taking a hard stance either way. I guess jesus was the first politician =]
This instance tells us that we cannot condemn anyone, especailly our children, because we can never be without sin. That is what it has to do with it.
You complain of context being a favorite argument of Christians. It is controversial subject because either someone takes scripture out of context with what we know as the character of God, which is describe throughout the Bible; or, because scripture can never be completely understood by man's intellect.
This instance tells us that we cannot condemn anyone, especially our children, because we can never be without sin.
holy shit, what a reach, Ben Wallace can't even reach that much.
what makes you think he means that we cannot condemn anyone? moreover, what makes you think we cannot be without sin? isn't that what he died for? moreover, where do you get the idea that children are especially above the laws of the old testament?
you reach too much. you presume things that are either not stated, or stated in some part of the bible I have forgotten. when you make claims about what the bible says, you should site proof. you cannot take part of the passage in question to prove the passage in question, it does not work that way. I think that preachers have planted too many ideas about jesus in your head. you don't seem to be getting your ideas from the bible (word of god), but rather from a preacher of some kind (who's life revolves around getting and keeping people in the church)
p.s. you need not quote the bible, I can look them up in one of my bibles if you give me the passages.
you don't seem to be getting your ideas from the bible (word of god)
Wasn't Christ supposed to be the Word (creative power, "logos") of God. At the beginning of John: "The word became flesh." Christ, the word of God, is within us. It is our higher self.
thats what I don't like about online arguments, people dodge all your questions.
Wasn't Christ supposed to be the Word (creative power, "logos") of God. At the beginning of John: "The word became flesh." Christ, the word of God, is within us. It is our higher self.
so..... you are saying that everyone can speak for jesus huh? you do realize that I would also speak for jesus if that were true, right?
what makes you think he means that we cannot condemn anyone?
moreover, what makes you think we cannot be without sin?
isn't that what he died for?
moreover, where do you get the idea that children are especially above the laws of the old testament?
you can answer them any time you like. or just admit that you have no basis for your claims.
thats what I don't like about online arguments, people dodge all your questions.
It's probably because "things aren't so simple".
so..... you are saying that everyone can speak for jesus huh? you do realize that I would also speak for jesus if that were true, right?
Yeah. "God" is within all of us. But if you think you are merely a body, you become a body, and you can only speak of bodily things. Our true self is "God". We are what we want to be. Everyone wants to be perfect ("God") That goal is our (the body's) real "self".
You know that you can not control your body in all situations. It controls you. But in reality, the body is supposed to be the "instrument" of the self. When our bodies advance, when they become equal to our "self", then we can be ourselves ("God"). I'm sure you always want the best for everyone. Yet, sometimes that doesn't happen, you make mistakes, because the evolution of the body is not over yet.
lets see, where to start with this one...
It's probably because "things aren't so simple".
all I ask is where you got the ideas you posted. by the way, what "were the" quotation marks for?
Yeah. "God" is within all of us. But if you think you are merely a body, you become a body, and you can only speak of bodily things. Our true self is "God". We are what we want to be. Everyone wants to be perfect ("God") That goal is our (the body's) real "self".
I simply think I am a man in search of truth. I would love to have god proved to me.
--what makes you think he means that we cannot condemn anyone?
--moreover, what makes you think we cannot be without sin?
--isn't that (allegedly) what he died for?
--moreover, where do you get the idea that children are especially above the laws of the old testament?
you can answer them any time you like. or just admit that you have no basis for your claims.
Hapsburg
08-02-05, 01:34 AM
"legos"
Christ played with legos? Awesome, those are cool. :D :p
comisaru
08-02-05, 02:54 AM
at least the person who, obviously, does not know very good english gave it a shot.
Thank you Cato. I'll try to improuve my english.
Reading other posts, I'd like to say that the arguments against religion couldn't be found inside the scriptures. If you accept a debate about some of Book prescriptions, you implicit accept the meaning of Book.
Also I think that "arguments against religion" could be replaced by "opinions about religion".
I simply think I am a man in search of truth. I would love to have god proved to me.
Ok, I'll show you proof of God's existence.
First you have to understand what God is. Most of the things which we have discovered now were already known in the past, but by different names. For example, soul is another word for "person". God is another word for what we know as the "higher self" in psychology (or the "observer" in certain physics). The "voice of God" is another word for conscience and so on.
Gods were often used to explain the world outside and the world within us, in a more interresting way for primitive people. There are infinite "gods". God is similar to light, which can be divided into infinite colors.
There is always one supreme God in all religions. Today, we know God as the "self" within us. You know that there is a "self" within you, and within me, and everyone else. Even "dead" things like stones have a "self", they're just not conscious of it. The atoms obey the self at all times because they don't have a conscious mind. Now you know what God is, and you know that it exists. It is you.
In the Beginning of the Bible, Abel murdered his brother. Abel looked around to see that no one saw him. He started to feel scared, somehow he knew that someone saw him. Then "the voice of God" spoke: "Where is your brother?"
This clearly indicates that God is equal to the "self": the thing that makes everything move.
First you have to understand what God is. Well, what your idea of God is, surely?
God is another word for what we know as the "higher self" in psychology (or the "observer" in certain physics). The "voice of God" is another word for conscience and so on.Ah - so this is your idea of what God is.
This is not true of a large number of theistic beliefs.
There is always one supreme God in all religions.I think the Romans and Greeks would disagree.
Today, we...I think you mean YOU... ....know God as the "self" within us. You know that there is a "self" within you, and within me, and everyone else. Even "dead" things like stones have a "self", they're just not conscious of it. The atoms obey the self at all times because they don't have a conscious mind. Now you know what God is, and you know that it exists. It is you.Okay - so you have managed to prove that "god exists" by saying "god = you, you know that you exist, thus god exists".
This is specific to the idea that "God is you."
In the Beginning of the Bible, Abel murdered his brother. Abel looked around to see that no one saw him. He started to feel scared, somehow he knew that someone saw him. Then "the voice of God" spoke: "Where is your brother?"
This clearly indicates that God is equal to the "self": the thing that makes everything move.Unfortunately this is not a clear indication. It is merely an interpretation.
Other religions (Christianity, for example) take a far more literal interpretation.
Okay - so your "god" exists - because you exist and your god is you.
But why call it "god"?
Why not call it "you"?
Ah - so this is your idea of what God is.
Of course. It's impossible for me to talk about anything else than me and my ideas.
Unfortunately this is not a clear indication. It is merely an interpretation.
Other religions (Christianity, for example) take a far more literal interpretation.
Literal? What is God? What is it supposed to represent, if not a higher self?
Okay - so your "god" exists - because you exist and your god is you.
But why call it "god"?
Why not call it "you"?
cuz people are used to the word God. I must relate between God and the real self in order to explain that God is supposed to represent our higher self. This is relativity.
...lololol. "Originally posted by Jenyar". That's the funniest thing i've heard in my life this far!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
...lololol. "Originally posted by Jenyar". That's the funniest thing i've heard in my life this far!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
D'oh! :D
No idea how that happened!!
Ah well, corrected now.
Literal? What is God? What is it supposed to represent, if not a higher self?To many "God" does not represent anything - he IS his literal being. "God" is not a representation of self, or of any other thing - it is "god" to those people.
It would be like asking what "red" is meant to represent - when it is nothing other than what it is.
cuz people are used to the word God. I must relate between God and the real self in order to explain that God is supposed to represent our higher self. This is relativity.But you imply through the use of the word "God" MORE than physical being - more than just consciousness - for which you still haven't provided proof of. You haven't defined "self" (a "self" that a rock also has, according to you) adequately to be able to say what proves the existence of this "self".
If you claim it is more than just the chemical and physical rules governing the thing then please provide the evidence.
To many "God" does not represent anything - he IS his literal being. "God" is not a representation of self, or of any other thing - it is "god" to those people.
God is a "being"? A male? A person? Has feelings, thoughts etc? Then he is literally a human, isn't he? Except that he has infinite power. So, you see, he represents something. But how illogical is that?
God is THE "Being" (existence)
You haven't defined "self" (a "self" that a rock also has, according to you) adequately to be able to say what proves the existence of this "self".
Rocks are made of atoms. Electrons move around the nucleus of the atom. What gives electrons their source of power? "Magnetism" (unknown to today's phycisists) What gives magnetism its source of power? Separation. What separates the negative from the positive? The mind (ie. consciousness, self or "God")
heaven (consciousness) and earth (material universe, manifestation of mind) were set apart. quran: " 21:30 Do the Unbelievers not see that the heavens and the earth were joined together, before We clove them asunder??"
If you claim it is more than just the chemical and physical rules governing the thing then please provide the evidence.
There is nothing physical. Everything is in our mind. "Matter" is a part of our mind. You can't be conscious of the universe unless it is in your consciousness. So, the universe is in my mind and it is not physical.
There is nothing physical
thats what always happens. when you argue with a theist long enough, they always come back to existentialism, or pure irrationality. I wish we could ban people for being existential/irrational. what is the point of coming to this site if nothing is real? we are here to talk about science, but if the universe is within your mind, then science is worthless because anything can change at any time.
inane
thats what always happens.
no not always.
when you argue with a theist long enough,
wut
they always come back to existentialism, or pure irrationality.
u probably mean this
I wish we could ban people for being existential/irrational.
ye me too, those bastards
what is the point of coming to this site if nothing is real?
i didn't come here i was born here. nothing is the only thing which is real. it is a "point" with nothing. that's the point.
we are here to talk about science,
negative. here we're supposed to talk religion with science and religion people :bugeye:
but if the universe is within your mind,
yeah what then?
then science is worthless because anything can change at any time.
oh, what why would anything change. yea it changes.
Ok, I'll show you proof of God's existence.
This clearly indicates that God is equal to the "self": the thing that makes everything move.
Why dont you at least respect their wishes and not post on this thread?
Hapsburg
08-02-05, 10:32 PM
Same to you, lapdog.
Since you slap me thusly unwarranted, one who would have defended your wishes, (what more could one expect of rabid dogs)
i will now join Yorda in defiance and posting here. Sorry, thou loseth.
superluminal
08-02-05, 11:27 PM
Lawdog,
Why do you speak in biblish? Thusly I say unto you, thou shouldest stop speaking in such an unseemly prickish way. It maketh thou to have the aspect of an ass.
perhaps, I should ask theists to argue for their side. however, it will all be nonsense anyway, so it don't matter.
Hapsburg
08-02-05, 11:41 PM
Since you slap me thusly unwarranted, one who would have defended your wishes, (what more could one expect of rabid dogs)
i will now join Yorda in defiance and posting here. Sorry, thou loseth.
You sound like a fucking jackass. Put up or shup up.
jayleew
08-03-05, 11:58 AM
perhaps, I should ask theists to argue for their side. however, it will all be nonsense anyway, so it don't matter.
Let's be honest here, there is no scientific case for God. Let's also recognize that there is a scientific case for an alternate theory of creation, which is natural selection. Does the lack of any alternate theory, other than random selection, automatically mean that it is true; a theory that has a case, but cannot be proven because the amount of time required to observe the process?
I realize that if it were proven true, then logic would say that there is no God. For now, we are stuck with a choice to have faith that because we see a river, then that must mean there is a water source upriver (without seeing the source). Under normal circumstances, I would jump on board and agree, even though I do not see the source either.
Why is it so easy for non-theists to believe that random selection is the cause of human life? A lack of a better alternative? Why should we not question everything? If it is one thing life teaches us, it is that not everything is as it seems. We grow trusting in science, only for us to find new evidence that disproves what they were so adamant was true before. Life is not so easy as to put in a test tube and measure it.
One thing science teaches us is that we will never completely be able to understand anything. With every truth, there are always more questions. How can anyone have that much faith in science's hypothesises today? Maybe it is those who see science as the only true thing in their life. The only thing that doesn't let them down. Why do non-theists (and some theists) believe in evolution as fact and not as a case?
Why is it so easy for non-theists to believe that random selection is the cause of human life?
It's not a matter of believing, it's a matter of evidence.
We grow trusting in science, only for us to find new evidence that disproves what they were so adamant was true before.
The only thing that could disprove evolution is a god. Got one?
One thing science teaches us is that we will never completely be able to understand anything.
Science is a system of understanding, your logic does not follow.
With every truth, there are always more questions.
True, but science does not deal in truths.
How can anyone have that much faith in science's hypothesises today?
Understanding the evidence.
Why do non-theists (and some theists) believe in evolution as fact and not as a case?
It has been stated before that all facets of science point to evolution as correct, from biology to cosmology.
You will also come to the same conclusions, if you take the time to study and understand the evidence.
jayleew
08-03-05, 01:14 PM
Why is it so easy for non-theists to believe that random selection is the cause of human life?
It's not a matter of believing, it's a matter of evidence.
It is circumstantial evidence. I could just as well say that aliens came down and influenced the DNA. The only way to prove this evidence is to actually observe the process. We observe microevolution, but there are too many unknowns over billions of years. A lot could have happened that science is guessing by the evidence.
We grow trusting in science, only for us to find new evidence that disproves what they were so adamant was true before.
The only thing that could disprove evolution is a god. Got one?
You cannot disprove evolution because it is not proven. It only has evidence. A person must make a choice to logically say that it is true given the evidence. It is not imperical.
With every truth, there are always more questions.
True, but science does not deal in truths.
Then why do we have people saying that its theory of evolution is true?
How can anyone have that much faith in science's hypothesises today?
Understanding the evidence.
I understand the evidence, but I also know that evidence is not truth. Evidence needs to be interpreted, and many times the interpretation is wrong.
Why do non-theists (and some theists) believe in evolution as fact and not as a case?
It has been stated before that all facets of science point to evolution as correct, from biology to cosmology.
And some equally respected scientists say the opposite.
You will also come to the same conclusions, if you take the time to study and understand the evidence.
I have arrived at the same conclusions as you, but I choose to not believe this evidence because of the potential implications and the lack of observation of the process.
Why do I choose to be illogical concerning God?
If you combine personal experiences and testimonies you hear, one's personal beliefs are developed upon evidence and stories (fact or fiction).
You could tell me a story about aliens and I am more apt to go along with you if I thought I saw one. Does this prove there are aliens? No, but it explains why one, such as myself, would go against logical evidence that is not yet fact. And, if I (a natural skeptic) believe in God, does that mean anything? Why is it that the larger number of people you have giving you an answer, chances are that the more accurate the answer is? Could it be that most people on Earth believe in a god? Whether or not they all agree on the same god, they agree there is more to life than what meets the eye. Human condition? Then, is it safe to say that anyone who is not a theist is exhibiting abnormal behavior since they do not succumb to the normal human condition?
Whether or not they all agree on the same god, they agree there is more to life than what meets the eye.
something similar to this came up in the thread about what atheists posit highest authority. the response to that thread showed me one huge difference. atheists don't need a romanticized world. theists want there to be more than meets the eye because they are not satisfied by the world around them, atheists are. its like Marx said, religion is an opiate, we (atheists) don't need that drug.
Then, is it safe to say that anyone who is not a theist is exhibiting abnormal behavior since they do not succumb to the normal human condition?
yeah, any time someone does something that is in the minority, it is abnormal. if theology is "normal" then I would rather be abnormal. it is a battle between aspects of humanity, on one hand, you have imagination, and the other logic, atheists choose logic.
jayleew
08-03-05, 02:18 PM
yeah, any time someone does something that is in the minority, it is abnormal. if theology is "normal" then I would rather be abnormal. it is a battle between aspects of humanity, on one hand, you have imagination, and the other logic, atheists choose logic.
Good enough. Logic is good and useful for living, but I would not let it make such an important decision. Besides, a life with God is a life of peace, even in hard times. Not to say, someone without God could also have the same, but it is easier with help because of human nature that works against logic.
Come to the darkside, it is easier and quicker way to enlightenment. ;)
JeremyHope1
08-11-05, 03:47 PM
Apologies, i was directed to this link because i am lost spiritually or religiously. However, i have arrived at a conclusion. I must preface by conceding that because "I" arrived at the conclusion, the thought is tangible only to our presence.
Here is my argument. If an atheist spends his life arguing against or for the proof of no GOD, or supreme being- which is unprovable in our plane or consciousness or lifetime. Then when he/she dies they have gained research but no answer. Still hopeless and discontent that his threoy was not solidified.
If a person seeks GOD, through doing the same research and praying. Then when he dies and along the way he/she has gained hope and lost nothing.
Seems to me that above the arguments for or against, that the only fruitful life is a hopeful life?
I'm sure that is oversimplified-but am I wrong and why?
Because, in two cases, i have witnessed atheists pray to god for help in flight and near a drowning. Conversely, i havent heard the same abandonment of faith during a crisis.
thank you.
jayleew
08-11-05, 03:55 PM
Apologies, i was directed to this link because i am lost spiritually or religiously. However, i have arrived at a conclusion. I must preface by conceding that because "I" arrived at the conclusion, the thought is tangible only to our presence.
Here is my argument. If an atheist spends his life arguing against or for the proof of no GOD, or supreme being- which is unprovable in our plane or consciousness or lifetime. Then when he/she dies they have gained research but no answer. Still hopeless and discontent that his threoy was not solidified.
If a person seeks GOD, through doing the same research and praying. Then when he dies and along the way he/she has gained hope and lost nothing.
Seems to me that above the arguments for or against, that the only fruitful life is a hopeful life?
I'm sure that is oversimplified-but am I wrong and why?
Because, in two cases, i have witnessed atheists pray to god for help in flight and near a drowning. Conversely, i havent heard the same abandonment of faith during a crisis.
thank you.
Join the club. We are all spiritually lost, the moment we figure everything out is the moment we become gods. But have faith if you have courage and challenge God to prove you wrong. It never ceases to amaze me that, even in my most doubtful times, God shows up and says, "Heeelllooo! I'm still here for you, see?" And my soul soars on the eagle's wings as I try to reason God away as coincidence. It is always a battle against yourself. Be strong and courageous and do not trust the words of any man, not even me. But seek God in the quiet and live fully and at peace and love your neighbor, and enjoy the roller coaster ride!
I could just as well say that aliens came down and influenced the DNA.
You could, but what evidence do you have to support such a claim? And then you must go on to explain how the aliens evolved?
It is not imperical.
No. it is empirical.
Then why do we have people saying that its theory of evolution is true?
I have no idea.
Evidence needs to be interpreted, and many times the interpretation is wrong.
Many times? Sorry, I don't buy that.
And some equally respected scientists say the opposite.
And what do those so-called 'respected' scientists have as an alternative theory to evolution? Creationism?
but I choose to not believe this evidence because of the potential implications and the lack of observation of the process.
Yet, you choose to beleive that which has never been observed, has no evidence whatsoever.
And, if I (a natural skeptic) believe in God, does that mean anything?
It can only mean one thing, that you are deluding yourself into thinking you're a skeptic.
Why is it that the larger number of people you have giving you an answer, chances are that the more accurate the answer is?
The answers I've recieved about religion are independent to the individual and usually are very different from one individual to the next. In fact, those beliefs are argued vehemently amongst the theists here. Who is right?
Could it be that most people on Earth believe in a god? Whether or not they all agree on the same god, they agree there is more to life than what meets the eye.
True, most people do beleive in gods. But, the fact they do not agree with each other should warrant serious consideration of those beliefs.
Then, is it safe to say that anyone who is not a theist is exhibiting abnormal behavior since they do not succumb to the normal human condition?
I would say that the normal human condition is to not believe in gods. Those who do are abnormal.
So here is one of the proof:
1) Absolute Truth has to exist because to say that it does not exist is to assume that this statement is absolutely true
(please note that the reverse does not work: The statement: truth exist do not need to be false :)
2) This absolute Truth is God
If youre religious and you believe the bible is real because of faith, we cant touch ya. Its an automatic tie.
No one can bust you, bible nuts pride themselves on believing in things that are hard to believe in. They think god will bless them for that. but if faith isnt enough...if you want history or fact in your bible... you are soo screwed.
In other words, there are no scientific arguments you can EVER make that would ever convince a religious idiot that he's wrong.
codanblad
05-14-08, 01:13 AM
So here is one of the proof:
1) Absolute Truth has to exist because to say that it does not exist is to assume that this statement is absolutely true
(please note that the reverse does not work: The statement: truth exist do not need to be false :)
2) This absolute Truth is God
Actually its my hamster. prove me wrong.
codanblad
05-14-08, 01:14 AM
forgot to mention, if you say its not my hamster (dramatic pause) you're doing satan's work, you're going to hell, you've rejected the holy spirit, you're never going to be happy cos you're in a state of spiritual denial. you also don't have morals, except those which have actually come from my hamster, our lord and saviour (peace be upon him)
codanblad
05-14-08, 04:32 AM
I would say that the normal human condition is to not believe in gods. Those who do are abnormal.
given that i would say a greater number of people embrace some kind of religion or supernatural/spiritual belief, i think that's an inaccurate statement. i've tended to divided people into two groups as well though, and it goes a little something like this:
people who see the flaws and doubt the whole.
people who see the the shiny, bright objects and ignore the flaws.
whether or not you believe in religion seems to be dependent on ur reaction to the dumb parts. namely, the old testament. thats not to say that i respect the new one.
SnakeLord
05-14-08, 05:22 AM
given that i would say a greater number of people embrace some kind of religion or supernatural/spiritual belief, i think that's an inaccurate statement. i've tended to divided people into two groups as well though
It depends where, (with regards to gods). A recent YouGov survey came up with the following:
Do you believe there is a god?
UK: Yes: 39% No: 36% Not sure: 25%
USA: Yes: 80% No: 9% Not sure: 11%
The difference is simply staggering. In time all remaining gods will become a relic of history like the majority have already done.
synthesizer-patel
05-14-08, 06:06 AM
So here is one of the proof:
1) Absolute Truth has to exist because to say that it does not exist is to assume that this statement is absolutely true
(please note that the reverse does not work: The statement: truth exist do not need to be false :)
2) This absolute Truth is God
But to say that "it might or might not exist" negates statement #1 - the statement only has relevance if you are absolutely certain in the first place. Only theists (and even then not all theists) are so certain - and even then its only OPINION - the rest of us a healthily sceptical.
It does not follow that absolute truth is god - absolute truth could be the colour yellow, or the farty sound of me cupping my hand under my armpits and waggling my arms for all we know - prove otherwise.
codanblad
05-14-08, 06:14 AM
It depends where, (with regards to gods). A recent YouGov survey came up with the following:
Do you believe there is a god?
UK: Yes: 39% No: 36% Not sure: 25%
USA: Yes: 80% No: 9% Not sure: 11%
The difference is simply staggering. In time all remaining gods will become a relic of history like the majority have already done.
i dunno man, are the numbers really dwindling? over 2000 years has much really changed? its still just a lot of people are religious.
But to say that "it might or might not exist" negates statement #1 - the statement only has relevance if you are absolutely certain in the first place. Only theists (and even then not all theists) are so certain - and even then its only OPINION - the rest of us a healthily sceptical.
What are you talking?
if you say that it may exist: then your statement is maybe false and you cannot say it is true. FINE it gives us no information about truth. it does not deny it existence neither its non existence
But now if you say that everything is false then you have to conclude that this statement "everything is false" as well is false and thus there has to be a truth
Your statement now has no more value because we know now that it exist.
Think at least more than one time
It does not follow that absolute truth is god - absolute truth could be the colour yellow, or the farty sound of me cupping my hand under my armpits and waggling my arms for all we know - prove otherwise.
synthesizer-patel;, you seems to have difficulties to understand, you always try to interpret the information in a way that will give you right
I did not say that it follows even if I agree that it could have been interpreted this way:
I wanted to say that the existence of god is based on 2 statements: 1 and 2
Actually its my hamster. prove me wrong.
Fine :)
synthesizer-patel
05-16-08, 04:43 AM
synthesizer-patel;, you seems to have difficulties to understand, you always try to interpret the information in a way that will give you right
indeed - because everything you say is so open to personal interpretation - that's what I, and a whole bunch of other people here have been attempting to point out to you.
You think absolute truth must by definition be God - I'm not so certain there is a definition for it
prove otherwise
"absolute truth must by definition be God"
That was Gandhis premise, Truth is God and God is Truth
synthesizer-patel
05-16-08, 06:51 AM
"absolute truth must by definition be God"
That was Gandhis premise, Truth is God and God is Truth
Proof that not even a wonderful human being like Ghandi got everything right ;)
Blue_UK
05-16-08, 07:19 AM
Question: could God be above logic? If he was somehow 'outside the box' of not only our universe, but also the fundamentals then he would be free to create in any way whatsoever, and we could not form any argument to describe him or anything else outside of our realm?
I think the answer is that he cannot be outside of logic. So for example, he cannot exist and not exist at the same time. Once we allow ourselves the use of logic, I don't think it is too hard to prove, at least, that if there is a god then he is certainly not 'the God' of the Christians.
Proof that not even a wonderful human being like Ghandi got everything right ;)
It was not about a matter of proof but a matter of definition.
And many theist believe that god is truth, the most sublime one.
Question: could God be above logic? If he was somehow 'outside the box' of not only our universe, but also the fundamentals then he would be free to create in any way whatsoever, and we could not form any argument to describe him or anything else outside of our realm?
That's an interesting question
But is logic right? I agree that the human mind cannot imagine to think correctly outside logic but it does not make it right.
I think the answer is that he cannot be outside of logic. So for example, he cannot exist and not exist at the same time. Once we allow ourselves the use of logic, I don't think it is too hard to prove, at least, that if there is a god then he is certainly not 'the God' of the Christians.
Even among Christian there are many kind of personal god, many division among the head of the Christian (not only talking to the different branches: Protestant, Anglican, Catholic, Orthodox,...) but I would agree with you for a god who is in some way (I cannot even conceive how it is possible) outside reality and who created humans out of clay.
Blue_UK
05-16-08, 09:49 AM
I don't believe in a god! There is nothing to suggest a divine creator who has a personality and is conscious in some way.
don't worry !
nobody said that
xvortexbladex
06-07-08, 03:38 AM
This is just something I find hilarious. Jesus was supposed to die on the cross...but he then came back to life...so what did he accomplish? Had he actually remained dead, then he really did accomplish the task of giving his life for our sins. However, when he came back to life, it is comparable to taking the welfare check right out of the needy's hand again; the big "F- You" to all of humanity. Some savior!
Religion however, is a very interesting topic. If you strip away the belief in god, then you have a philosophy. Buddhism originally was a philosophy until some people decided to worship Buddha like a God. Take away Jesus and God and you have message for how people should live their everyday lives. That also means you take away all he parts about the Israelites warring in the name of God against the Canaanites, the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Romans, etc. Take away Mohammed and Allah and you have the same thing, without having to kill in any of their names, in fact, you can even take it farther and abolish anything that has to do with misogyny. Take Hinduism and take away their primary and secondary Gods and all you are left with is how to live in harmony with nature. The only reason why religion is religion is because there is an invisible being with whom the theistic leaders can wage wars for or justify their actions with.
Even if the religion becomes philosophies, they still have to face some pressing problems. Some of them are: the inaccuracies of explaining the world, its emphasis on creating the "us or them" dilemma to polarize people against one another, some demand the unjust treatment of those different from the "leaders", etc.
To show that there is little credible evidence for a god, you have to attack the root axioms first. This would mean we have to start at the primacy of existence vs the primacy of consciousness. The primacy of consciousness means that there is a conscious act that brought everything into existence. This is also called the "first cause" argument that theist tend to use in their apologetics. The "first cause" states that in order for everything to exist, there has to be a creator, if there is a creator, there is a beginning and an end. Here is where we have problems. If we analyze this objectively, we notice that we are begging the question here. We have to accept at face value that existence had at one moment been nonexistent, that there is a beginning and an end, and that there is a creator; none of the statements is necessarily true, but the theist wants you to assume that they are in order for the argument to be effective. Let us look at why the argument fails at the most fundamental level. First of all, the act of creating, whether intelligent or unintelligent, requires a physical entity to enact the forces for creation. If there is already a physical entity to enact the forces, then there could not have been "nothing" before "anything". Thus, existence exists and the primacy of existence is starting to become a more reasonable argument than the primacy of consciousness. The act of creation requires time and space if the fact that something created has a beginning or end. If there had been nothing, then that means time also has to be created. Why? because time is arbitrary, it is just the relative positioning of two entity to each other, time can be distorted if need be and thus there really is not such thing as the time we know. So to say that time can be created is absurd, this means time has to exist even before the act of creation. Again, if something has to exist before the act of creation, then existence has always existed. So, here is where things get kind of screwy. Theist then propose that their god exists outside of existence so that it does not have to be bound by any of these rules. Sound great doesn't it? Well, actually, it still doesn't get them out of the trap of simultaneous existences. If something is outside of existence, that means it does not exist, because there is no possible way even conceptually for anything to exist outside of existence. Because if it exists outside of existence, it still exists within the realm of existence and get their god absolutely nowhere.
Here is something interesting to consider. The universe is the sum of all existence, anything that is known to exist can only be found in the confines of this universe, no one can say for sure that they can exist outside of this universe because there has been no evidence for it and no one has ever experience that before. The theists say their god exists outside of existence, that means it cannot be anything definite and thus has an infinite identity (this also means the god is everything yet also nothing, and is outside of this universe.). However, they turn around and say their god is just, wise, etc. Those descriptions limit him within a sphere. If he is a wise god, then he cannot be unwise. But in the previous definition that God can be anything, then that means he can also be unwise too. The theists are now trying to violate the law of identity. A=A, A cannot = non-A, and thus A cannot equal A and non-A simultaneously. The letter "A" is the essence of the object. A chair is no longer the same chair if any part of it's identity is changed. The same with a god. If the god is infinite in capabilities, it is non-A, if god has a definite and definable ability, then it can be designated as an A. The god is now a contradiction because both characteristics are trying to become one. No contradictions can exist in this known universe (unless the contradiction is a concept), a paradox can. Contradictions means both qualities has to exist simultaneously, not one at a time in repetition since such entities do exist.
Thus, if God has a contradicting nature, and contradictions cannot exist outside of a conceptual level, then it is most likely that God does not exist except within a conceptual realm. If God has to exist in order to act out the creation of existence, there cannot be inexistence, and thus contradicts the act of creation itself. Therefore, see the conclusion mentioned before. Just because God most likely does not exist, does not make the conclusion definitive. However, the conclusion does work consistently until some evidence comes about to prove the notion incorrect.
(I know that someone out there might mention that when I said "objectively", human beings cannot be objective. My question for him/her is to assess whether that assertion itself is objective? "People cannot be objective" is an objective assertion and therefore contradicts the conclusion.)
If God can create a Rock that is so heavy that he cannot lift it,
Then there is something he cannot do (that is, cannot lift the rock).
If God cannot create a Rock that is too heavy for him to lift,
Then there is something he cannot do (that is, cannot create the 'too heavy' rock).
God cannot simultaneously achieve both. Therefore, God cannot be omnipotent. :bugeye:
If God is all knowing, all seeing, knows what we are thinking, knows what we do and God knows what is best; Then why is there a need to physically bow, bring your hands together and pray? If you think something, God would already know what that thought was, so there is no need to actually say it. If God knows what is best, why not just leave your faith in God? Why are you questioning God? Example, If a relative is sick, it is because God wants and has made that person sick, for he knows what is best. If you pray and ask God to make that person better, you are essentially questioning God. Asking him to reconsider what he is doing, to make them better. God knows what is best- Why pray?
If we can live in heaven for eternity (that is without end) then why does there have to be a beginning? If this life can't be it, why can the next life be it? If God created the world, then who created God?
:shrug:
God is humble. therefore God would not recognise himself as a 'God'. If God does not recognise a 'God', then God is... an atheist. :eek:
I have tried for many years to argue against religious people and have only succeeded in making them look stupid, it has had no effect on their 'belief'. I am in Love with a Muslim girl who ardently loves me back but cannot marry me because I am not Muslim. This girl sees religion as the most important thing in her life, yet breaches it everyday. Has never read the Koran and does not care for logic because her religion is inside of her. This is the direct result of culture and indoctrination. To question their profit is a sin. This is the beginning of the death of reason. When things cannot be questioned...
The jesuits once said "Give me the child for seven years, and I will give you the man." This is the pure truth. This is why we have 'World Youth Day' and the Hillsong Churches aimed squarely at Children. They are securing the future of the religion. Islam permits a Muslim man to marry a non-Muslim woman but does not permit a Muslim woman to marry a non-Muslim Man. Why? Because under Islam, the child takes on the fathers religion. As a Muslim one of the first duties is to raise the child as a Muslim. This secures the growth of Islam.
Don't bother with adults already infested, concentrate on the youth before their feeble minds are corrupted. Good luck! Be prepared for heartache and frustration. But don't relent.
Imagine there's no heaven, its easy if you try, no hell below us, above us only sky...
P.s. Everything you are looking for is in Richard Dawkins' brilliant book 'The God Delusion'. Buy it, it is well worth the read.
All modern Religions are pagan adaptations of the ancient Egyptians theology, which has its foundations in those who studied and relied upon movements of the sun, moon and planets to gauge seasons, in order to survive. The christian cross in front of a circle is an astrological symbol holding the sun as the centre of the zodiac. Son of a virgin stems from the sun beginning from the constellation Virgo. This doesn't just apply to Christianity. It's all there. It's complex. But it all makes sense and explains a hell of alot! See for yourself:
www . zeitgeistmovie . com
Compare with Samuel Sandmel’s article 'Parallelamania'.
Another interesting point to note is all prophets studied religion. Coincidence? Even Mohummad, who was a merchant, studied Christianity.
Medicine*Woman
11-04-08, 04:34 PM
All modern Religions are pagan adaptations of the ancient Egyptians theology, which has its foundations in those who studied and relied upon movements of the sun, moon and planets to gauge seasons, in order to survive. The christian cross in front of a circle is an astrological symbol holding the sun as the centre of the zodiac. Son of a virgin stems from the sun beginning from the constellation Virgo. This doesn't just apply to Christianity. It's all there. It's complex. But it all makes sense and explains a hell of alot! See for yourself:
www . zeitgeistmovie . com
Compare with Samuel Sandmel’s article 'Parallelamania'.
Another interesting point to note is all prophets studied religion. Coincidence? Even Mohummad, who was a merchant, studied Christianity.
*************
M*W: Welcome to sciforums. I'm glad you're here. Now I have someone with whom I can communicate about ancient religions and astsro-theology.
~ Medicine*Woman
Welcome!!!
Cellar_Door
11-09-08, 11:06 AM
For the purposes of this thread, I am a Theist.
--how can got grant prayers without infringing on free will? if you pray for a certain outcome, then people would not have the free will to do otherwise.
They have the free will to act against the prayer of another, but that doesn't mean they will succeed in reversing its effect.
--how can evil exist with a good and omnipotent god?
Free will.
--god cannot be totally omniscient without our futures being predetermined.
Of course he can; it's called free will. Plus, some Theists do believe that destiny plays a part in some aspects of our lives.
--an omniscient and good god has only one choice in any situation, which is to do the most good. therefore god has no free will.
Why is this an argument against religion?
--if god kept you out of heaven for following the wrong religion then god would be immoral for not showing you the right way, and since there are so many religion, either god does not care if you worship, or god is immoral.
Who says following the 'wrong' religion will keep you out of heaven? As long as you follow a good and decent life you will not be subjected to oblivion.
--if jesus was the son of the same god as the old testament, then why are parts of the old testament considered wrong, while we follow the new testament. (referring to the death penalty for those who work on the sabbath, dishonor their parents, ect)
Some of the new testament is considered wrong by some as well. The entire Bible is seen as false by many people. What is your point?
Is it really free will if you are damned to hell for exercising it?
jayleew
11-12-08, 03:34 PM
Who says following the 'wrong' religion will keep you out of heaven? As long as you follow a good and decent life you will not be subjected to oblivion.
Well, the Bible says that thou shalt have no other god. You could argue that all religions speak of the same god. That just isn't true. They are like night and day most of the time. But, not really surprising, they are exactly the same (sometimes word for word) at other points. But, the point is the basic doctrines are not compatible. So unless god is the god of chaos.......hmmm.:m:
Some of the new testament is considered wrong by some as well. The entire Bible is seen as false by many people. What is your point?
Sweet, let's throw the Bible in the fire and start over discovering if there is a god using science, life experience, and reason! I'm half serious.
There are many many more people who see the Bible as 100% true than those that see it as false. So what is your point?
PsychoticEpisode
11-12-08, 05:36 PM
My argument against religion is and always has been the fact that there is no need for it. Not one person alive today can say with all certainty that God exists, not one. Likewise no one can say He doesn't exist with 100% accuracy. Therefore one either decides yes or no. Whatever the decision is, that is what you believe. There is nothing extra you can offer to either choice because no one indisputably knows the truth. So it behooves us to not lanquish on religion any more than you would a passing fancy. It is totally meaningless to pursue it any further because, as it is proven here every day, it solves nothing.
If you care to personally indulge in a private philosophy of your own making then by all means do it but as soon as you start spouting off that you've found and are beginning to know God then you must understand the reluctance of some people to heed your words.
How can anyone admit they have no proof of God and then follow it up by telling us what they know about Him? Problem is that some people are looking for God, desperate to locate Him and are eager to jump at the chance if it sounds good. It becomes religion. Religion is synonymous with fiction, if you don't know then there is nothing that can ever be written to explain God, plain and simple.
lightgigantic
11-12-08, 09:34 PM
Psychotic Episode
My argument against religion is and always has been the fact that there is no need for it. Not one person alive today can say with all certainty that God exists, not one. Likewise no one can say He doesn't exist with 100% accuracy. Therefore one either decides yes or no. Whatever the decision is, that is what you believe. There is nothing extra you can offer to either choice because no one indisputably knows the truth. So it behooves us to not lanquish on religion any more than you would a passing fancy. It is totally meaningless to pursue it any further because, as it is proven here every day, it solves nothing.
A problem with this argument is that atheism does not have a means to arrive at a conclusive answer. Theism does. So atheism is kind of like the default position of not applying theistic practices. Kind of like a person who does not believe that immunizations are real cannot conceive of any real need for immunizations.
If you care to personally indulge in a private philosophy of your own making then by all means do it but as soon as you start spouting off that you've found and are beginning to know God then you must understand the reluctance of some people to heed your words.
Usually a claim of knowledge is preceded by theory. Next comes the application of this theory or practice. And finally comes conclusion. The problem of atheists is that they insist on venturing on to topics of the conclusion without approaching practice, and, for the most part, theory.
How can anyone admit they have no proof of God and then follow it up by telling us what they know about Him?
How can anyone who has no knowledge of the theory that surrounds god and no experience of the practice that surrounds that theory declare that no one can know god?
Problem is that some people are looking for God, desperate to locate Him and are eager to jump at the chance if it sounds good.
Some other people are looking for excuses to neglect god, desperate to dismiss him and are eager to jump at the chance if it sounds good
It becomes religion. Religion is synonymous with fiction, if you don't know then there is nothing that can ever be written to explain God, plain and simple.
more plain and more simple is that claims stand in tandem with practice ...
laladopi
11-12-08, 10:49 PM
shallow, ignorant, and close minded? why dont you just end your life if nothing matters but the pure fact we were created from nothing, unless your one of those "enjoy the time in between" fake stupid bullshit someone needs to smoke some pot and think for a couple hours, and based on your believes your mind wont take you that far. your drilling in the wrong direction maaan. your believes are your beliefs.
Psychotic Episode
A problem with this argument is that atheism does not have a means to arrive at a conclusive answer. Theism does.
Of course its a completely fallacious answer.
lightgigantic
11-13-08, 06:00 PM
Of course its a completely fallacious answer.
there are normative descriptions behind the claims of atheists?
:D
there are normative descriptions behind the claims of atheists?
What does it matter? Your answer is completely fallacious.
Blue_UK
11-14-08, 09:54 AM
Hi Cato and friends. Here's a quick capture of my thoughts.
Premise: We make decisions. These decisions can be based on random or non-random causes. Since God cannot possibly judge us on what occurs randomly, we examine the non-random. Non-random explicitly requires a pattern or 'direction' to our decision making. This pattern cannot be chosen by the person making the decision, because even if they 'could' change their non-random biases they'd only change them to something based on their existing state.
In summary: we may have free will to do as we want, but are not free to choose what it is that we want.
In conclusion: Since a supreme creator cannot therefore hold us responsible for our actions and this is the manner of the Christian God, the Christan God does not exist.
lightgigantic
11-14-08, 07:07 PM
What does it matter? Your answer is completely fallacious.
its false?
then your normative descriptions do certainly matter ....
so whenever you're ready
Hi Cato and friends. Here's a quick capture of my thoughts.
Premise: We make decisions.
Among other things, but ok...
These decisions can be based on random or non-random causes.
Can't agree. Even if we agree to reduce decisions to being based on causes, you have not justified excluding mixed random and non random causes.
Since God
Who?
cannot possibly judge us on what occurs randomly
why not?
we examine the non-random.
Why not skip the preamble and just say "Let's examine decisions based on non random causes?"
Non-random explicitly requires a pattern or 'direction' to our decision making.
Not established, also even if non random causes produce patterns, it is not show they are constrained to produce a single specific pattern. Any decent real problem will have multiple solutions.
This pattern cannot be chosen by the person making the decision, because even if they 'could' change their non-random biases they'd only change them to something based on their existing state.
Not shown. Same problem as before
In summary: we may have free will to do as we want, but are not free to choose what it is that we want.
I must disagree.
In conclusion: Since a supreme creator cannot therefore hold us responsible for our actions and this is the manner of the Christian God, the Christan God does not exist.
Something being inconceivable to you doesn't preclude its existence. You would do better to go with proving the entire notion of god is self contradictory.
mensajohn
04-01-09, 08:57 AM
I AM NOT SURE THESE CONSTITUTE THE BEST THOUGHTS ON WHY RELIGION DOESN'T REFLECT REALITY.
--how can god grant prayers without infringing on free will? if you pray for a certain outcome, then people would not have the free will to do otherwise.
So there is no free will or at least partial free will? That may invalidate a major premise of certain religions and related contentions based on it but even a god can't do the impossible; violate predetermination, etc.
--how can evil exist with a good and omnipotent god? God may not be omnipotent but considering god has the whole universe which may be infinite to deal with theoretically even infinite power divided up among it it may not be enough to ensure an outcome in a specific place especially considering the supposed evil countering forces of immense abilities.
--god cannot be totally omniscient without our futures being predetermined.
So our futures are predetermined? God may easily be less the described in certain literature. It is easy to ascribe overly positive attributes on to entities that allegedly you owe your existence to.
--an omniscient and good god has only one choice in any situation, which is to do the most good. therefore god has no free will.
So god has no free will; big deal as it it may be that that probable fantasy has no choice theoretically. It may be that certain religions got it wrong or maybe misquoted god :).
--if god kept you out of heaven for following the wrong religion then god would be immoral for not showing you the right way, and since there are so many religion, either god does not care if you worship, or god is immoral. If god is immoral or indifferent as a possibility allowable by certain religions god ISN'T RESPONSIBLE for man's teachings though it is very highly probable that mans' teachings created "god".
Can god become so stupid even the religious won't worship him?
Do religious people have any standards at all?
Raithere
04-03-09, 01:43 AM
so, I would like people to post their best logical arguments against religion/god here.It's a bit difficult to give argument against god without defining the term god, but what the heck.
Against Religion: Assuming god exists it would be pure hubris to presume to understand the mind or intention of god, even more so to usurp god's authority by speaking on it's behalf.
Against God: A perfect being has no motivation to act. In fact, any action would create change and therefore imperfection. So if god did exist, it couldn't create the universe or man. The universe and man exist, therefore god does not.
~Raithere
Diogenes' Dog
04-05-09, 11:38 AM
Theists need not post here, this is not the place for debate, this is for the gathering of ideas from atheists only.
I'm a theist, but here are some of the arguments AGAINST God's existence that I find most difficult to answer... (It's really refreshing to argue from the opposite position. I'd recommend it!)
1) Do we need God? No. Science better explains how we come to exist. Since Darwin, Paley's 'argument from design' for God's existence is a redundant theory. Why continue with an outdated and discredited concept (God), when we have a better explanation in evolution. Science will eventually explain all such natural phenomena, so we do not need God.
2) Does God answer prayer? No. In 2006 the most complete prayer research study (Benson, H. 2006 (http://www.templeton.org/newsroom/press_releases/060407step.html)) showed that intersessionary prayer had NO POSITIVE EFFECT on heart patients. Indeed, some patients who were prayed for got worse! The simplest conclusion is that prayer does not work because God does not exist.
3) Does God help us to be good? No. We are told religion helps us live a virtuous life. For example, Christians (we are told) are 'born again' in Christ as better people (than non-Christians). Yet, the history of religion is one of bloodshed, burnings and torture by the Christian Church. The Inquisition tortured and burned alive thousands of people for daring to contradict their doctrines. Religion still creates killers: The 9/11, 7/7, and Bali bombers, the "Lords Resistance Army" in Congo, IRA/UDA in Northern Ireland and suicide bombers in Iraq and Israel/Palistine are just a few of the long list of religiously motivated murderers.
Since the decline of religion in the West however, and the rise of secular science, we have got more humane, more democratic and more liberal. Doesn't this indicate that we've been lied to about the benefits of religion?
4) Is "God = Love"? Take a look at the God of the Torah/Bible/Q'ran. God commands genocide, rape, murder, infanticide and dreadful punishments for minor infringements (for a list see http://www.evilbible.com/). Many believe God will eventually send millions to a Hell of eternal torture. Many religions enforce strict rules e.g. opposing gay rights and equal opportunities for women. Many demand harsh punishments (flogging, execution or cutting off limbs) for minor crimes (e.g. adultery), or for non-belief. Is fear the real motivation for belief? Is this a God you'd want? Wouldn't we be better off without this tyrant?
5) Does God save us? Remember the Tsunami of Boxing Day 2004: Did God command it, or was he powerless to prevent it? If the first He is evil, if the second, He is impotent or non-existent. Praying to God brought no protection. Moreover, Nature is 'red in tooth and claw'. Suffering, disease and death are written into the very design of the universe it seems... Is this a 'perfect' creation designed by a sadistic God or just blind evolution at work? Conclusion: God either delights in suffering, or He doesn't exist.
6) Does God exist? No. Science shows we don't need God to explain the universe. Research shows that God doesn't answer prayer. History shows belief in God doesn't make us good. The Bible/Torah/Q'ran show us that fear motivates belief, and Nature shows us that the universe is blind to our suffering. Conclusion: There is no God. :shrug:
MrAnderson
04-26-09, 11:33 PM
I have read a lot of great things here.
A good direction that I rarely hear people venture toward in an argument against the existence of god or the validity of religion, is the fundamental neurological function of belief.
Why are people so prone to believe such irrational things? Why is the testimony of a religious person so emotionally and deeply ingrained in them?
True it is difficult to argue with a religious person due to the emotional thinking (hence irrational). It really does not make sense why they cling so emotionally to fairy tale like accounts of bronze age stories (even older since they were taken from Sumerians, Egyptians, etc.).
The brain is the topic that holds the key to debunking religion. UC San Diego did an experiment that revealed the limbic system as the culprit for religious experiences. It performs a sort of emotional hijacking of the brain similar to rage, fight/flight, extreme elation, etc.
Even though we do not need religion to make sense of the world that science has sufficiently illuminated, humanity still cannot give it up. We are exactly like a heroin addict. (Addiction stems from limbic phenomena).
I am an atheist, yet I still find myself "wanting" to believe stories about existence that make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside (religion). It is the exact same feeling I get when I crave a cigarette (haven't smoked in 4 years).
its false?
False as the day is long.
For some reason you think I care to compound your idiocy. No thanks. All that is required is to observe that you are wrong. I've no further interest beyond that. After all, it isn't my question.
fedr808
04-29-09, 10:05 AM
CMB radiation. It is the evidence of the big bang happening. It is basically that in the first 300,000 years there was super heated plasma in the universe, so hot electrons werent even bonded to protons yet. But photons were constantly getting scattered by the electrons creating CMB, but when the universe expanded enough that the plasma cooled and the electrons bonded with protons the CMB was free to roam the universe, and no matter wher eyou look in the nightsky there is always a thin layer of CMB radiation.
Foopmaster
07-02-09, 12:52 AM
This is a pretty old thread with lots of good contributions. I'll add my two cents.
The arguments over "The Existence for/against God" are largely irrelevant. A more fruitful argument would be to answer the question "If (hypothetically) God DID INDEED EXIST, would he be worthy of worship?". If we take the bible as evidence, the answer is a resounding NO. The God of the bible commits and condones nearly all of man's worst character traits/behaviors including (but not limited to): Jealousy, infanticide, genocide, slavery, misogyny, vengeance, and BLOOD SACRIFICE. Anyone who says God is merciful and kind has 1) never read the bible 2) has read it but ignores the parts where God is shown in a less-than-favorable light or 3) read and acknowledged these verses, but attempts to perform semantic acrobatics to show these passages to be somehow "metaphorical".
I always encourage people to read the bible, because that is the best way for them to see how detestable the Christian God is. Search up "The Skeptics Annotated Bible" for some clear-cut examples FROM THE BIBLE of how God is NOT worthy of worship.
Norsefire
07-02-09, 01:18 AM
The best arguments are the ones that state the obvious, that there's no evidence.
However many of the arguments stated in the OP aren't really arguments at all; for instance you argue "if god exists and is good than why is there evil"
Who says god is good? Maybe he's mixed or maybe he allows evil to occur for a specific reason
That isn't really the best argument
phlogistician
07-04-09, 09:25 AM
Cato, you want an argument against religion? Just show people posts made by 'Lori 7'. It will show them that religion requires the abandonment of logic and reason, and therefore self esteem.
phlogistician
07-04-09, 09:33 AM
Plus, some Theists do believe that destiny plays a part in some aspects of our lives
Destiny is contrary to free will, isn't it?
VnerLoveJoyUrminita
07-06-09, 06:51 PM
;)
We also have the theodice problem, stated by David Hume: If the evil in the world is intended by God, he is not good. If it violates his intentions, he is not almighty. God can't be both almighty and good. There are many objections to this, but none that holds since God is ultimately responsible for the existence of evil. Besides, if only God can create he must have created evil. If somebody else (the devil) created evil, how can one know that God, and not Satan created the universe?
Most atheists define evil according to their own interpretation. By defining evil as things they don't like, they have created a circular argument guaranteed to "prove the non-existence" of God. The Christian definition of evil is anything done by one of God's spirit beings (humans or angels) against Him (or His created beings). As such, God is never responsible for evil - only His created spirit beings.
Atheists say that since only God can create, therefore He must have created evil. However, at this point the atheist has redefined the meaning of create. Evil was not created. Evil is manifested (committed) by free-will beings. Nice play on words, but it doesn't stand up to examination.
Vner,
Welcome.
The Christian definition of evil is anything done by one of God's spirit beings (humans or angels) against Him (or His created beings). As such, God is never responsible for evil - only His created spirit beings.Which were designed by him with the ability to do evil. If he had truly not wanted evil to occur he could have designed them without the ability, or provided them adequate knowledge and intelligence that they could deduce that evil has no ultimate value. Either way the decision to allow evil is entirely his and he must be held responsible for allowing it to exist.
Atheists say that since only God can create, therefore He must have created evil. However, at this point the atheist has redefined the meaning of create. Evil was not created. Evil is manifested (committed) by free-will beings. Nice play on words, but it doesn't stand up to examination. Created/designed, whatever. The whole of creation is entirely his choice and with omnipotence it could have been different. The existence of evil and the tendency for some individuals to commit evil are all simply components of his master plan. Had he not wanted evil to exist it would have been so. It exists because he wanted it so.
The free-will argument is the weak part of the Christian argument here. Given adequate knowledge and ability to reason, anyone can determine that evil has limited long term benefits. Free-will alone is inadequate without the right tools and knowledge to use it wisely. In this case the Christian God deliberately designed a no-win scenario and must have known people had no choice but to fail. Again, all intended and designed by a claimed omni-bevelolent god that seems impotent to warrant this title.
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.