freestyle_rich
Active member
free will prevents God from stepping in, we have free will therefore if we was to step in and correct our mistakes, we would no longer have free will
Alright all you athiests
- Thread starter freestyle_rich
- Start date
Scratch*my*Back
Active member
rewriting this so u guys can see it clearer and it's easier for u to read.
good god. here we go:
this is not necessarily what i believe.. at the moment i am agnostic but here is why many theorists/scientists dont believe in god
according to the information laws, every piece of information requires a sender. when i say information i mean DNA or cells. every piece of living matter contains information. cells that tell us how it functions. as i said, every piece of information requires a sender, since the sender (God) can not be investigated by humans, scientists believe He does not exist.
The Sender, Creator, is claimed to be responsible for everything, without exception, as it says in the first verses of John's Gospel and in Colossians 1:16 "For by Him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulesr or authorities; all things were created by Him and for Him."
Now, clearly we have some 'evidence' and some information that God did indeed exist and this information is enough for many people to believe He exists.
But the Bible also gives us lots of useless information....that really doesnt help us decide what to believe in at all. nor does it inform us. for example:
"useless" information in the bible can be divided into two parts..indifferent information is the parts of the bible that tell u to be truthful etc. the injurious are the ones that tell u not to sin or else there will be consequences. i.e. "but i tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every carless word they have spoken. For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned"-Matthew 12:36-37...
from a skeptic's point of view, all of such words are useless because they give us no information about God himself. Since much of the Bible contains this type of "information" skeptics are not persuaded. (skeptics that read up on religion that is)
The old testament, however, is something skeptics are little more lenient with. God gives advice in the old testament, "Do not let this book of the law depart from your mouth, meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do everything written in it. then you will be prosperous and succesfful"-Joshua 1:8.
but as for me...i am not necessarily a fan of religion because i do not like lines in the bible and or new testament such as these:
"Obey me, and I will be your God and you will be my people. Walk in all the ways I command you, that it may go well with you" -jeremiah 7:23.
i dont like that. that's disturbing to me.I honestly feel like most religions are simply training programs of behaviour. Instead of finding faith people are finding a routine of life and decisions that are made for them without their knowledge. they think they've made these decisions, but had God not said they wuld be punished for those decisions, would they still refrain from making them? personal morality and religion should be seperate. as should the law and other things as such.
good god. here we go:
this is not necessarily what i believe.. at the moment i am agnostic but here is why many theorists/scientists dont believe in god
according to the information laws, every piece of information requires a sender. when i say information i mean DNA or cells. every piece of living matter contains information. cells that tell us how it functions. as i said, every piece of information requires a sender, since the sender (God) can not be investigated by humans, scientists believe He does not exist.
The Sender, Creator, is claimed to be responsible for everything, without exception, as it says in the first verses of John's Gospel and in Colossians 1:16 "For by Him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulesr or authorities; all things were created by Him and for Him."
Now, clearly we have some 'evidence' and some information that God did indeed exist and this information is enough for many people to believe He exists.
But the Bible also gives us lots of useless information....that really doesnt help us decide what to believe in at all. nor does it inform us. for example:
"useless" information in the bible can be divided into two parts..indifferent information is the parts of the bible that tell u to be truthful etc. the injurious are the ones that tell u not to sin or else there will be consequences. i.e. "but i tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every carless word they have spoken. For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned"-Matthew 12:36-37...
from a skeptic's point of view, all of such words are useless because they give us no information about God himself. Since much of the Bible contains this type of "information" skeptics are not persuaded. (skeptics that read up on religion that is)
The old testament, however, is something skeptics are little more lenient with. God gives advice in the old testament, "Do not let this book of the law depart from your mouth, meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do everything written in it. then you will be prosperous and succesfful"-Joshua 1:8.
but as for me...i am not necessarily a fan of religion because i do not like lines in the bible and or new testament such as these:
"Obey me, and I will be your God and you will be my people. Walk in all the ways I command you, that it may go well with you" -jeremiah 7:23.
i dont like that. that's disturbing to me.I honestly feel like most religions are simply training programs of behaviour. Instead of finding faith people are finding a routine of life and decisions that are made for them without their knowledge. they think they've made these decisions, but had God not said they wuld be punished for those decisions, would they still refrain from making them? personal morality and religion should be seperate. as should the law and other things as such.
pmills
Active member
you're asking questions with answers that you wouldent even understand.
why don't you read the post i put above, epicurus' paradox...
Epicurus is generally credited with first expounding the problem of evil, and it is sometimes called the Epicurean paradox (or the riddle of Epicurus). In this form, the argument is not really a paradox or a riddle, but rather a reductio ad absurdum of the premises. Epicurus drew the conclusion that the existence of evil is incompatible with the existence of the Gods. More generally, no paradox or problem exists for those who do not accept the premises, in particular the existence of a benevolent god or Gods.
"Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. ... If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. ... If, as they say, God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?"
why don't you read the post i put above, epicurus' paradox...
Epicurus is generally credited with first expounding the problem of evil, and it is sometimes called the Epicurean paradox (or the riddle of Epicurus). In this form, the argument is not really a paradox or a riddle, but rather a reductio ad absurdum of the premises. Epicurus drew the conclusion that the existence of evil is incompatible with the existence of the Gods. More generally, no paradox or problem exists for those who do not accept the premises, in particular the existence of a benevolent god or Gods.
"Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. ... If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. ... If, as they say, God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?"
Jasmine
Active member
You should research the experiment from the 1950's by stanley miller and Harold Urey. Basically, they mixed methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen (H2), and water (H2O), then ran a continuous electric current through the system, to simulate lightning storms believed to be common on the early earth. Analysis of the experiment was done by chromotography. At the end of one week, Miller observed that as much as 10-15% of the carbon was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed some of the amino acids which are used to make proteins. Perhaps most importantly, Miller's experiment showed that organic compounds such as amino acids, which are essential to cellular life, could be made easily under the conditions that scientists believed to be present on the early earth. This enormous finding inspired a multitude of further experiments.
So basically in an anaerobic atmosphere (which means no oxygen), as was present on early earth, the 20 amino acids essential to life were created, and as we know (and as i hope no one would argue against), DNA consists of amino acids in nucleotide base sequences. So there's your life. Once you have the DNA, transcription and translation come easy.
I believe in this because it has experimental evidence. Yes, I am faithless, but I like having the hard evidence to prove what I'm saying, so I don't have to use garbage like, "You just gotta have faith," to prove my point. I apologize to the creator of this thread for that sterling example of liberal bigotry.
Jasmine
So basically in an anaerobic atmosphere (which means no oxygen), as was present on early earth, the 20 amino acids essential to life were created, and as we know (and as i hope no one would argue against), DNA consists of amino acids in nucleotide base sequences. So there's your life. Once you have the DNA, transcription and translation come easy.
I believe in this because it has experimental evidence. Yes, I am faithless, but I like having the hard evidence to prove what I'm saying, so I don't have to use garbage like, "You just gotta have faith," to prove my point. I apologize to the creator of this thread for that sterling example of liberal bigotry.
Jasmine
RKF
Active member
yes it was heavily exaggerated.. there are babylonian historical records of a flood, which killed a large number of people.. but didnt wipe out all humanity.. and yes they actually took 2 of a few animals basically rabbits, and it was for food, not to save them. the old jewish guys who thought it was a good story put it into the old testament, then it was exaggerated more and put into the new testament.
i agree the thought of two of every animal on a barge is a rather silly concept.
i agree the thought of two of every animal on a barge is a rather silly concept.
freestyle_rich
Active member
oh yeah to whoever called me a preacher, i have not preached any specific religion, im just debating the existance of a supernatural power of some sort that i call "god" so people will not become confused
Scratch*my*Back
Active member
rewriting this so u guys can see it clearer and it's easier for u to read.
good god. here we go:
this is not necessarily what i believe.. at the moment i am agnostic but here is why many theorists/scientists dont believe in god
according to the information laws, every piece of information requires a sender. when i say information i mean DNA or cells. every piece of living matter contains information. cells that tell us how it functions. as i said, every piece of information requires a sender, since the sender (God) can not be investigated by humans, scientists believe He does not exist.
The Sender, Creator, is claimed to be responsible for everything, without exception, as it says in the first verses of John's Gospel and in Colossians 1:16 "For by Him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulesr or authorities; all things were created by Him and for Him."
Now, clearly we have some 'evidence' and some information that God did indeed exist and this information is enough for many people to believe He exists.
But the Bible also gives us lots of useless information....that really doesnt help us decide what to believe in at all. nor does it inform us. for example:
"useless" information in the bible can be divided into two parts..indifferent information is the parts of the bible that tell u to be truthful etc. the injurious are the ones that tell u not to sin or else there will be consequences. i.e. "but i tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every carless word they have spoken. For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned"-Matthew 12:36-37...
from a skeptic's point of view, all of such words are useless because they give us no information about God himself. Since much of the Bible contains this type of "information" skeptics are not persuaded. (skeptics that read up on religion that is)
The old testament, however, is something skeptics are little more lenient with. God gives advice in the old testament, "Do not let this book of the law depart from your mouth, meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do everything written in it. then you will be prosperous and succesfful"-Joshua 1:8.
but as for me...i am not necessarily a fan of religion because i do not like lines in the bible and or new testament such as these:
"Obey me, and I will be your God and you will be my people. Walk in all the ways I command you, that it may go well with you" -jeremiah 7:23.
i dont like that. that's disturbing to me.I honestly feel like most religions are simply training programs of behaviour. Instead of finding faith people are finding a routine of life and decisions that are made for them without their knowledge. they think they've made these decisions, but had God not said they wuld be punished for those decisions, would they still refrain from making them? personal morality and religion should be seperate. as should the law and other things as such.
good god. here we go:
this is not necessarily what i believe.. at the moment i am agnostic but here is why many theorists/scientists dont believe in god
according to the information laws, every piece of information requires a sender. when i say information i mean DNA or cells. every piece of living matter contains information. cells that tell us how it functions. as i said, every piece of information requires a sender, since the sender (God) can not be investigated by humans, scientists believe He does not exist.
The Sender, Creator, is claimed to be responsible for everything, without exception, as it says in the first verses of John's Gospel and in Colossians 1:16 "For by Him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulesr or authorities; all things were created by Him and for Him."
Now, clearly we have some 'evidence' and some information that God did indeed exist and this information is enough for many people to believe He exists.
But the Bible also gives us lots of useless information....that really doesnt help us decide what to believe in at all. nor does it inform us. for example:
"useless" information in the bible can be divided into two parts..indifferent information is the parts of the bible that tell u to be truthful etc. the injurious are the ones that tell u not to sin or else there will be consequences. i.e. "but i tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every carless word they have spoken. For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned"-Matthew 12:36-37...
from a skeptic's point of view, all of such words are useless because they give us no information about God himself. Since much of the Bible contains this type of "information" skeptics are not persuaded. (skeptics that read up on religion that is)
The old testament, however, is something skeptics are little more lenient with. God gives advice in the old testament, "Do not let this book of the law depart from your mouth, meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do everything written in it. then you will be prosperous and succesfful"-Joshua 1:8.
but as for me...i am not necessarily a fan of religion because i do not like lines in the bible and or new testament such as these:
"Obey me, and I will be your God and you will be my people. Walk in all the ways I command you, that it may go well with you" -jeremiah 7:23.
i dont like that. that's disturbing to me.I honestly feel like most religions are simply training programs of behaviour. Instead of finding faith people are finding a routine of life and decisions that are made for them without their knowledge. they think they've made these decisions, but had God not said they wuld be punished for those decisions, would they still refrain from making them? personal morality and religion should be seperate. as should the law and other things as such.
Scratch*my*Back
Active member
omg i posted it twice fahk. lol
RKF
Active member
but if he made us why would we have free will? unless he just wanted something to do with his time and made a bunch of life the way we make tv shows.. but then why would you bother living and believing in him if all he did was creat you for his own personal entertainment.. if god existed i would be pretty pissed at him about it and no fucking way would i worship his power-tripping ass.
freestyle_rich
Active member
thank you for drawing such a conclusion. never have i said "you just gotta have faith" or something like that. experiements can answer the what and when, but they cannot answer the how and the why. i believe that something had to have created the matter that formed to create us, how can you get something from nothing?
pmills
Active member
its a pointless "debate" because no one will change their mind
if god created everything, how could there be evil in the world in the first place? it would have had to come into existance at the hand of the 'creator' which would contradict your conception of god.
A belife in god should be a personal matter, bringing your own belifes to someone else supports the system of religion which is the epptiomy of man kind. Religion brings hatred, death, seperation and intollerance to people with differing views.
if god created everything, how could there be evil in the world in the first place? it would have had to come into existance at the hand of the 'creator' which would contradict your conception of god.
A belife in god should be a personal matter, bringing your own belifes to someone else supports the system of religion which is the epptiomy of man kind. Religion brings hatred, death, seperation and intollerance to people with differing views.
i have had some sick shit happen to me which i barely survived. it makes it hard to beleive in god
MrPantyDropper
Active member
well for a silly question you are partially wrong and partially right.
the purpose of life is to reproduce.
the purpose of life is to reproduce.
freestyle_rich
Active member
how would you not like having free will? how would you like it if someone were to dicate your entire life for you? it does not make any sense to get "pissed off" for not having free will. I'm pretty sure people under a communist regieme are pretty pissed off about not having free will.
MrPantyDropper
Active member
thats the way it used ot be in india and many other countries.
Scratch*my*Back
Active member
free will doesnt exist. well it does to an extent. but once free will is acted upon it disappears, according to relativity that is.
freestyle_rich
Active member
religion also breeds peace, love, kindness, charity, positive thinking, hope guidance, reason, knowledge etc. and dont go around saying its because of religion that there are terrorists because those people arent religious- especially when they're going against what is written in their own holy book
RKF
Active member
dude nobody can explain something from nothing.. thats as dumb as dividing by 0. she explained life, and organic molecules coming from non organic molecules out of the effects of electricity.
read the fucking posts.. i have no problem with people who decide to be religious, nor do i have a problem when they would like to discuss other views, but when they try and discuss without actually looking at, understanding, or putting he time into understanding the facts being placed infront of them it makes me feel as though you dont actually care about discussing and that all you want is attention by saying "hey look at me im religious". thats all you appear to be doing. you arent providing any solid arguaments for your own side.
though i cant blame you for not providing good arguaments because i suppose religious people dont really have any.
read the fucking posts.. i have no problem with people who decide to be religious, nor do i have a problem when they would like to discuss other views, but when they try and discuss without actually looking at, understanding, or putting he time into understanding the facts being placed infront of them it makes me feel as though you dont actually care about discussing and that all you want is attention by saying "hey look at me im religious". thats all you appear to be doing. you arent providing any solid arguaments for your own side.
though i cant blame you for not providing good arguaments because i suppose religious people dont really have any.
freestyle_rich
Active member
free will does exist because you are able to do whatever you want to, i can jump out a window and no 3rd party force will stop me from doing so, therefore free will does exist.
RKF
Active member
i didnt answer the purpose of life part.. so partially right i agree with but i wasnt partially wrong because i didnt say anything. though i dont believe there is a deep meaning to life so i suppose the purpose as far as i am concerned is have a good time with it, and if you have some morals try not to fuck the place over too badly so that others can have a good time after you.
freestyle_rich
Active member
well if you cant explain something from nothing than how can you argue the existance of god?
RKF
Active member
that goes back to my other post about you not reading and understanding the posts people are making... you simply pick out a few lines and assume the rest of the arguament is what you want it to be then argue something that wasnt even said. but thats cool, i dont blame you, if i was religious i would be grasping out at straws too.
freestyle_rich
Active member
wars have been over religion, however everyone just decides to look at the negative instead of the negative and the positive.
freestyle_rich
Active member
show me the proof that more bad has come out of relgion than good. our whole society is based on morals and laws that have come from religion so how can you even say that it is 100% negative?
RKF
Active member
because something from nothing didnt happen dipshit. im sorry for using such harsh language but that fact is it didnt come from nothing, i am arguing the existance of god because i know that something came from somthing else. not from nothing...
as i said before read and think about what a person posted before you pickout a random line that can be taken out of context and arguing with it.
as i said before read and think about what a person posted before you pickout a random line that can be taken out of context and arguing with it.
MrPantyDropper
Active member
nobody has said it was 100% negative
Notorious_BLT
Active member
throughout history humans have used a supernatural being to explain what they did not know, which still goes for today. science has proved many new things but still things are unknown, so therefore we cant explain it and say its obviously god.
if you want my two cents there could or couldnt be something that created the universe or whatever, but some religions? they are just a moral standard for people to follow in my opinion, which are good for people that need it. but does it really matter?
im my opinion just live a good life and if there is a god and heaven and what not you should get in unless you seriously have to follow a certain religion which i think would be bullshit, but if not you lived a good life and there are no worries. just in case
if you want my two cents there could or couldnt be something that created the universe or whatever, but some religions? they are just a moral standard for people to follow in my opinion, which are good for people that need it. but does it really matter?
im my opinion just live a good life and if there is a god and heaven and what not you should get in unless you seriously have to follow a certain religion which i think would be bullshit, but if not you lived a good life and there are no worries. just in case
MitchPee
Active member
My theory...
The universe wasn't created. In fact it never not existed. Time is an invention only relevant to humans. There is no "time" in the universe. Imagine something that has always been there. It is a circular pattern, "time" overlaps and does not exist.
Life was brought to Earth by an asteroid. An asteroid had ice chunks along with particles of carbon, hydrogen and other basic elements. These eventually became the basic nutrients and capabilities to life.
The universe wasn't created. In fact it never not existed. Time is an invention only relevant to humans. There is no "time" in the universe. Imagine something that has always been there. It is a circular pattern, "time" overlaps and does not exist.
Life was brought to Earth by an asteroid. An asteroid had ice chunks along with particles of carbon, hydrogen and other basic elements. These eventually became the basic nutrients and capabilities to life.
freestyle_rich
Active member
and 50% positive. sorry about the slow responses, way too many questions to answer at once
Notorious_BLT
Active member
everybody has different oppinions, and not ever is everyone going to agree
ever
ever
my main reason to not believe in god is that i havent really been raised with religion and a belief that their is a god. i grew up this way and now that i have i dont sense any believing in this. god seems to be a supernatural apparation to me.
im not one to believe in supernatural issues. i dont believe in ghosts or vampires or anything. all these "ghost sitings" are quite possibly just fog which just happened to have a space in it shaped like a human. these coincidences are possible and i believe that all ghost siting resemble this. i am a man of science and tend not to believe what cant be proven by science (no i am not a scientologist) but i like things defined for me so i can base an opinion through facts. there are no facts, just preachings about god and this is another reason why i cant bring my self to realise that their is a god.
there is one supernatural issue i do believe in and that is karma. it happens to me so much. just by running though statistics the majority points out that it does exist. this statistic forces me to believe that it does exist. if it happened once or twice i wouldnt be believing it in such a way i do now but since id say about 85% of the time it happens, i strongly believe in it.
im not trying to spoil it for people but since there isnt any scientific evidence of a god i dont believe that their can be. im not saying this IS the case, im saying its my belief. but if you believe that there is a possibility of a supernatural force out there be more than welcome to believe.
im not one to believe in supernatural issues. i dont believe in ghosts or vampires or anything. all these "ghost sitings" are quite possibly just fog which just happened to have a space in it shaped like a human. these coincidences are possible and i believe that all ghost siting resemble this. i am a man of science and tend not to believe what cant be proven by science (no i am not a scientologist) but i like things defined for me so i can base an opinion through facts. there are no facts, just preachings about god and this is another reason why i cant bring my self to realise that their is a god.
there is one supernatural issue i do believe in and that is karma. it happens to me so much. just by running though statistics the majority points out that it does exist. this statistic forces me to believe that it does exist. if it happened once or twice i wouldnt be believing it in such a way i do now but since id say about 85% of the time it happens, i strongly believe in it.
im not trying to spoil it for people but since there isnt any scientific evidence of a god i dont believe that their can be. im not saying this IS the case, im saying its my belief. but if you believe that there is a possibility of a supernatural force out there be more than welcome to believe.
RKF
Active member
the morals have not come from religion... morality has always been drrived from the masses, hence the reason for ajury in a court room, morals didnt come from religion, they come from peoples feelings, if i think of doing something and i feel like i am a bad person after i thought of it, i know it is wrong. if i feel good than i know it is right. right and wrong behavior are decided from human kinds evolution as a social species which developed hormones to allow us the sensations of guilt if we do something wrong. there are obviously problems with it and there are flaws in genetic inheritance patterns that occasioally result in a hormonal imbalance which leads people to kill others and do what is considered by the majority of people to be wrong... however as i said morality is determined by the masses, if most people feel an action is wrong then that will be considered wrong. its not a hard concept to grasp, humans have the ability to determine right or wrong as a species, not because of some book written thousands of years ago.
pmills
Active member
morals and laws should NEVER come from religion because a relgion only applies to those who follow it.
you can have morals and ethics without religion
as for wars that have had a relgious context, there are far to manny to list
the European Wars of Religion, the Crusades, and the Reconquista are just a few examples
you can have morals and ethics without religion
as for wars that have had a relgious context, there are far to manny to list
the European Wars of Religion, the Crusades, and the Reconquista are just a few examples
freestyle_rich
Active member
so youre saying that humans dictate themselves what is morally right and wrong by how they feel?
freestyle_rich
Active member
how the masses feel