RapVerse.com Community

RapVerse.com Community (http://community.rapverse.com/index.php)
-   The Cerebral Approach (http://community.rapverse.com/forumdisplay.php?f=352)
-   -   Argument for God's existence from design.. (http://community.rapverse.com/showthread.php?t=240628)

Crazy Hades 03-15-07 08:43 PM

Quote:
Why are non believers ALWAYS on a campaign to disprove religion

Does it really kill you to see somebody have something to believe in?

Just keep it moving


Excuse us for actually arguing and trying to pick the right answer. I suppose you would rather have us close our eyes and pick with inny-minny-minnie-mo?

Sir Smash'Alot 03-15-07 09:27 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terumoto
Religion started it by trying to prove God's existence. And I do believe in God, I just don't think of him as a sentient being. What's so wrong about ripping apart a shitty argument that attempts to prove God's existence? It doesn't affect what you believe in, does it? If it does you aren't a christian.

im not talking about the occasional thing where somebody comes around and says "this argument sucks"

i mean in general

non believers are ALWAYS trying to pick apart EVERY religion, its like people have nothing else to live for, besides try and make people seem like idiots


Quote:
Excuse us for actually arguing and trying to pick the right answer. I suppose you would rather have us close our eyes and pick with inny-minny-minnie-mo?


You can follow science, which will be different in a few months, maybe years, or historical documents..

Although the bible is really corrupt from the romans, its still historical. In 50 years, those same things happened.

and apart from that, im not even saying youre wrong for trying to find the truth, but why are you gonna sit around trying to prove one group of people wrong all the time? How does it affect you if you dont believe in any sort of higher being? and after this all youre gonna be is worm food.

Crazy Hades 03-15-07 09:49 PM

Quote:
and apart from that, im not even saying youre wrong for trying to find the truth, but why are you gonna sit around trying to prove one group of people wrong all the time? How does it affect you if you dont believe in any sort of higher being? and after this all youre gonna be is worm food.


Your argument is based off the assumption I sit around and try to prove one group of people wrong, and that's it.

Terumoto 03-15-07 10:17 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Smash'Alot
im not talking about the occasional thing where somebody comes around and says "this argument sucks"

i mean in general

non believers are ALWAYS trying to pick apart EVERY religion, its like people have nothing else to live for, besides try and make people seem like idiots




You can follow science, which will be different in a few months, maybe years, or historical documents..

Although the bible is really corrupt from the romans, its still historical. In 50 years, those same things happened.

and apart from that, im not even saying youre wrong for trying to find the truth, but why are you gonna sit around trying to prove one group of people wrong all the time? How does it affect you if you dont believe in any sort of higher being? and after this all youre gonna be is worm food.


Non-believers in what? I believe in almost every (legitimate) religion, including christianity, that doesn't mean I can't pick apart peoples idiotic ideas of what their religion is. If anything, destroying somebody's beliefs is a way to help them get closer to the truth, people don't usually do it just for the sake of being a jerk. And there are a lot of different understandings and doctrines within the same "religion" for example the different sects of Buddhism or different Christian groups. Obviously religions change and develop over time, people add their understandings and discoveries to the religions to try and help people, or in a lot of cases to selfishly try and help themselves.

So it is a great thing to do to point a finger at something that sounds fishy, pick it apart and completely ruin it. It's like a process of elimination, the more people rule things out, the closer everybody will get to finding the right beliefs for them. The choices will be narrower, it will be easier to see what appeals to you.

In most cases if someone is protective of their religion and doesn't want someone trying to rule their beliefs out, they get upset instead of rationally defending their beliefs. Often it becomes a matter of "well what do you know" or "arguing doesn't prove anything" or "you're going to hell anyway it doesn't matter." Even unexplainable things can at least be referred to. If a Christian says to me "I believe in God because of some experiences I have had that I think are miraculous," I will say well what are these, and if there is no good explanation for them then that's great. All that's left for them to do is develop their perceptions and beliefs and fill in the gaps.

Once all the gaps are filled in, it becomes clear that what you have constructed is the outline of an unfillable gap, and then it clicks.

But to praise and defend a doctrine just because you believe in it isn't a good thing to do. One thing you have to be careful of is religions, they are fucked up and full of misinformation and corruption.

M the Literal 03-15-07 10:22 PM

You have it backwards, Smash'Alot. People who don't believe in God are traditionally not responsible for persecuting religious people, icons like Dawkins aside. Religious people are usually the ones attacking people who aren't religious on the grounds that we are attacking religious people, which we are not.

How it generally goes is X asks me what I think, I tell X, and then I am oppressing X with my thoughts because I don't believe in whatever. This is not my personal experience, this is the experience of the atheistic movement as a whole, if you can call it that. Someone will express an opinion, and then suddenly all non-believers are suppressing belief in God and if you don't send your money now, Satan will surely triumph.

Why is this so? Because atheists don't actually care about converting people (except for, as I said earlier, Dawkins and his sycophants, who are reactionaries), whereas Christians and Muslims do. Major religions have an interest in painting the other side as the enemy because they want converts for whatever reason. Atheists have no agenda that would make them want to get people on their side that badly. I leave Judaism out here because the Jews aren't really interested in converting people unless they have some Jewish heritage already, and even so, there isn't a massive "get the Jews back!" campaign being waged.

Your "you can follow science, which will be different in a few months" argument is also ridiculous. Do you think that religion doesn't evolve? It does; the way you interpret documents evolves. They're religion's evidence. It just so happens that science's evidence is the natural world. The way you interpret things will always be based upon history, whether you agree or disagree with what was written in the past. Non-religious science is just as founded upon history as religious thought is.

In summary, you're an idiot.

P.S.: No, I'm not calling all Christians idiots. I'm calling you an idiot. You who post on RapVerse as Sir Smash'Alot. You are an idiot.

∆ P E X X 03-15-07 10:29 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Smash'Alot
im not talking about the occasional thing where somebody comes around and says "this argument sucks"

i mean in general

non believers are ALWAYS trying to pick apart EVERY religion, its like people have nothing else to live for, besides try and make people seem like idiots




You can follow science, which will be different in a few months, maybe years, or historical documents..

Although the bible is really corrupt from the romans, its still historical. In 50 years, those same things happened.

and apart from that, im not even saying youre wrong for trying to find the truth, but why are you gonna sit around trying to prove one group of people wrong all the time? How does it affect you if you dont believe in any sort of higher being? and after this all youre gonna be is worm food.

what still happened? if its corrupt, how do you know any of it happened? there's no historical documents to prove any of it. just wide spread word of mouth. add to that the fact that you don't know where the truth ends and the lies begins.

now some people choose to believe that, and some choose to question it

∆ P E X X 03-15-07 10:33 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terumoto
Word, I forget who it was who originated that argument, but he jumped the gun a bit. If you think this one is bad, you should see aquinas' arguments. He goes from basically nothing to "God exists." One of his arguments is this:

1) Events happen.
2) Events are caused by other events.
3) There can be no infinite chain of events.
L) There must be a first uncaused cause that began the chain of events.
C) God exists.

It's like whoa, slow down buddy. Not only are his premises crap, he skipped straight to god exists from some shitty thing.


lol yeah man, his logic is basically "i don't understand it, therefore god exists"

Dufflebag Boy 03-15-07 10:51 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terumoto
wtf.. Two gasses mix together and create a single celled organism? To create life you need methane, ammonia, hydrogen, water and lightning or electricity. Even then, you're just creating amino acids and not an actual life form.

I think if it were that easy to create living organisms then biotechnology would have progressed a lot further than it has.


im just telling u what i learned in my science class back in 9th grade

Terumoto 03-15-07 11:51 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mindstate
im just telling u what i learned in my science class back in 9th grade


You must have had a bad teacher lol.

*Froze* 03-19-07 09:18 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazy Hades
The only logical argument I have seen for God is the incorruptibles (preserved bodies of saints that are centuries old but barely decomposed, though quite a few have been poorly preserved or revealed to the elements for quite a while without greater decomposition). The argument is stupid because the analogy itself is completely retarded. It is not like a pocket watch having a maker --- it's like a kitten having a mother. The universe was created by whatever irrational means. From the dust and gas of nebulae came planets. From the planets came life.

Most people wouldn't accept this because of how improbable it is. Someone once said something along the lines of evolution has the same chance of existing as a twister blowing through a junkyard and constructing a Boeing 747. Then what is the chance of a perfecting being able to create things at will having always existed? A tornado coming down from Pluto, winning four gold medals in the Olympics (but fucked up the long jump and the pole vault), then blowing through a junk yard, creating Pamela Anderson, doing the macarena, and taking a piss on Terumoto's pet goldfish.


rofl haha I'ma steal that line..

Cola 03-19-07 02:07 PM

to fully understand something you gotta break it down first...

that pretty sums up T's arguement...


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:40 PM.