Kedyns Crow Posted July 23, 2009 Author Share Posted July 23, 2009 How about this for proof of God's existence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kF3L359yKjs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willfor Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 I feel no need to point to the stupidest members of the side I oppose to prove my points. It's kind of like pointing at someone's poop to prove how stupid the person is. It's theoretically possible, but it doesn't negate the fact that you are looking at someone's poop. If you like that sort of thing, more power to you, but I would rather not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jyosua Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 It's the former, because the latter would also rule out cults. Well, I would actually say the latter, but I would also say that one would need to define the point at which a cult becomes a religion. Personally, I have found the best argument for God is that we are nothing more than clumps of bacteria who have harnessed the power of electricity, and chemical reactions to create the largest plague ever known by the bacteria that have infested Earth. Some tend to find this as more of an argument against God, but then again, some children fancy dressing up in their parent's clothes and thinking they know everything.Personally? I know nothing. There was a man once that claimed that he knew nothing. The oracle of the land declared him the wisest of all, because he realized this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Defeatist Elitist Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Personally, I have found the best argument for God is that we are nothing more than clumps of bacteria who have harnessed the power of electricity, and chemical reactions to create the largest plague ever known by the bacteria that have infested Earth. Some tend to find this as more of an argument against God, but then again, some children fancy dressing up in their parent's clothes and thinking they know everything. So by this you mean there are no good arguments for the existence of God? As for the Banana argument, yeah, that one is pretty hilarious. My favorite response is "Then why the fuck did he put it all the way up the tree?" followed closely by "You know Bananas don't naturally grow like that, right?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shuuda Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 (edited) we are nothing more than clumps of bacteria who have harnessed the power of electricity, and chemical reactions to create the largest plague ever known by the bacteria that have infested Earth. Well, that makes more sense that the story about being made by magic. That's right, magic. God is magic. The supposed creation is magic. The bible is full of magic. Of course, Christians never use the word magic, because that would make God look no different any any other fictional magic. How about this for proof of God's existence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kF3L359yKjs How about this for proof that Ray Comfort is a moron: And here is the script for the video above: http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/14thFFoC.html Edited July 23, 2009 by Shuuda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasori Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 there is no proof that the cristian god or any god exist religion can't be proven and i don't think it should be if your really believe in a god you don't need proof Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rehab Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 (edited) ^Devil's advocate response: Why does anything need to be proven? What gives religion special immunity that allows to to go without backing itself up with evidence that works in the real/logical/scientific world? Edited July 23, 2009 by Rehab Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasori Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 The fact that you cant prove it we cant go to heaven ask god if he exist and then come back with an anser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shuuda Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Sasori, this is the serious discussion area. Please make an attempt to improve your grammar and spelling. Your post makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meteor Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 If you can't prove it, why do you believe it? Do you have any evidence to suggest a god exists? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zanarkin Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 If you can't prove it, why do you believe it? Do you have any evidence to suggest a god exists? The same thing as this If you can't disprove it, why don't you believe it? Do you have any evidence to suggest a god doesn't exist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shuuda Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 (edited) If you can't disprove it, why don't you believe it? Do you have any evidence to suggest a god doesn't exist? You cannot disprove the existence of fairies, so why don't you believe in them? In fact, nothing that you do not believe in has even been disproven one hundred percent; why don't you believe in them? They could all be in fact true (the key word here is COULD). Just because something cannot be disproven, does not make it a valid idea. The burden of proof falls on the people asserting God's existence. Saying we shouldn't not believe in something because it is not disproven is flawed thinking on your part. Positive claims require positive evidence. Edited July 23, 2009 by Shuuda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meteor Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 For the same reason you wouldn't believe me if I told you I'm Michael Jordan. No evidence. As for my evidence against God, I'll use my own true story. You can't say PEMN because that's the only possible evidence you could have to believe in him. According to the Bible: - Anything I request in God's name will be granted. - Lust = adultery = sin. So when I prayed to God asking him to help keep me from looking at porn yet he did not, there is only one logical outcome. - God does not care (contradiction!) - God does not exist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zanarkin Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 You cannot disprove the existence of fairies, so why don't you believe in them? In fact, nothing that you do not believe in has even been disproven one hundred percent; why don't you believe in them? They could all be in fact true (the key word here is COULD).Just because something cannot be disproven, does not make it a valid idea. The burden of proof falls on the people asserting God's existence. Saying we shouldn't not believe in something because it is not disproven is flawed thinking on your part. Positive claims require positive evidence. don't get me wrong, i'm neutral in this gods bussiness but see everytime people discuss about gods existence we end in the same thing, neutrality(if that is even a word). What i meant is that you can't simply say that god doesn't exist just because there is no proof. the same way you can't say there is a god and have no prove to back it up. You get what i mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kedyns Crow Posted July 23, 2009 Author Share Posted July 23, 2009 How about this for proof that Ray Comfort is a moron: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYsnVMjG4lk...CC&index=13 I loved that video. Although somebody could possibly make a valid argument that natural selection no longer exists because of the existence of Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron. Besides, we’re obviously not both looking at ERVs, atavisms, transitional forms, physiological, anatomical, and molecular vestiges, ontogeny and developmental biology, protein functional redundancy, convergent phenotypes, mobile genes, observed speciation, or the myriad methods of dating geologic stratigraphy, nor any twin-nested hierarchy of phylogenetic clades. - That was the best part of the video. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 For the same reason you wouldn't believe me if I told you I'm Michael Jordan. No evidence. As for my evidence against God, I'll use my own true story. You can't say PEMN because that's the only possible evidence you could have to believe in him. According to the Bible: - Anything I request in God's name will be granted. - Lust = adultery = sin. So when I prayed to God asking him to help keep me from looking at porn yet he did not, there is only one logical outcome. - God does not care (contradiction!) - God does not exist Lust /= adultery...God's not going to help you stop sinning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meteor Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 That's not what Matthew 5:28 says. If that's the case, care to explain why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esau of Isaac Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 don't get me wrong, i'm neutral in this gods bussiness but see everytime people discuss about gods existence we end in the same thing, neutrality(if that is even a word). What i meant is that you can't simply say that god doesn't exist just because there is no proof. the same way you can't say there is a god and have no prove to back it up. You get what i mean? Yes you can. Do you hold positive belief that the Earth is not flat? If so, you're completely denying the existence of invisible and intangible monkeys that are altering humanity's perception of the Earth's shape. You have no evidence to prove them wrong, so you're not just going to dismiss the idea that the Earth is flat, are you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 That's not what Matthew 5:28 says. If that's the case, care to explain why not? Don't read the Bible. If God fixed every fault you had, there would be no point in having you live to try to get to Heaven. Or...something like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Defeatist Elitist Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 don't get me wrong, i'm neutral in this gods bussiness but see everytime people discuss about gods existence we end in the same thing, neutrality(if that is even a word). What i meant is that you can't simply say that god doesn't exist just because there is no proof. the same way you can't say there is a god and have no prove to back it up. You get what i mean? My invisible friend is going to rape you in your sleep tonight unless you pay me $1000000000000000000000000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crystal Shards Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 (edited) don't get me wrong, i'm neutral in this gods bussiness but see everytime people discuss about gods existence we end in the same thing, neutrality(if that is even a word). What i meant is that you can't simply say that god doesn't exist just because there is no proof. the same way you can't say there is a god and have no prove to back it up. You get what i mean? The people who say, "God doesn't exist," aren't necessarily saying He doesn't exist because they have proof that He doesn't exist. They're saying He doesn't exist for LACK of proof that He DOES exist. Those who claim something exists, like Shuuda said, are burdened with providing proof. Hence "Burden of Proof." Time and time again people claim, "Oh yeah God totally exists," but the second anyone says, "K, proof?" they either point to the Bible--which has been pointed out in this thread several times to be a book written by imperfect men and translated several times by imperfect men and often changed for political reasons... by imperfect men--or they point to the fact that disbelievers "can't prove he's NOT real" which is quite possibly the worst argument in existence. There is also, "He is beyond our understanding," which I think is the biggest cop out statement in existence. Being unable to disprove something is not proof of it. Being unable to prove something exists, however, is grounds to call it a fantasy. Edited July 24, 2009 by Crystal Shards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zanarkin Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 The people who say, "God doesn't exist," aren't necessarily saying He doesn't exist because they have proof that He doesn't exist. They're saying He doesn't exist for LACK of proof that He DOES exist. Those who claim something exists, like Shuuda said, are burdened with providing proof. Hence "Burden of Proof." Time and time again people claim, "Oh yeah God totally exists," but the second anyone says, "K, proof?" they either point to the Bible--which has been pointed out in this thread several times to be a book written by imperfect men and translated several times by imperfect men and often changed for political reasons... by imperfect men--or they point to the fact that disbelievers "can't prove he's NOT real" which is quite possibly the worst argument in existence. There is also, "He is beyond our understanding," which I think is the biggest cop out statement in existence. Being unable to disprove something is not proof of it. Being unable to prove something exists, however, is grounds to call it a fantasy. I see what you are saying, i see my error. I never believed that just because there is a bible it means that god exist. But then i ask myself what inspired those people to write it? and so its kind of a vicious circle in which i go through both sides and end up where i started XD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Der Kommissar Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 From that argument, you might also be persuaded to believe that Moby Dick and Stephen King's It exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffer Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 It's funny that most people talk about the vertical part of religion (the connection to some deity) when discussing religion, as the horizontal part (the connection between people of the same religion) is far more important. That is, in my eyes and those of some evolutionists (OMG evolution explaining religion), the most important reason that religion seems so encoded in human behaviour: it essentially strengthens the bonds in a group of individuals, creating a solid community, which in return increases the chances of survival for the entire group. I doubt you will find many individualist religions, let alone ones with many members. Of course, a vertical part that makes some sense whatsoever would be preferable, but they don't seem to exist properly just yet, so it's a necessary evil for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Defeatist Elitist Posted July 26, 2009 Share Posted July 26, 2009 It's funny that most people talk about the vertical part of religion (the connection to some deity) when discussing religion, as the horizontal part (the connection between people of the same religion) is far more important. That is, in my eyes and those of some evolutionists (OMG evolution explaining religion), the most important reason that religion seems so encoded in human behaviour: it essentially strengthens the bonds in a group of individuals, creating a solid community, which in return increases the chances of survival for the entire group. I doubt you will find many individualist religions, let alone ones with many members. Of course, a vertical part that makes some sense whatsoever would be preferable, but they don't seem to exist properly just yet, so it's a necessary evil for now. Except it isn't necessary at all. There are plenty of things you can use other than belief in the unfounded in order to connect or unite people. I am not a religious person, yet I have formed many interpersonal bonds. Religion is not necessary in any way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts