The thread disproves god entirely

[stevenadrien2]

Dpunk, an offtopic question

Have you always been an atheist? if not
when did u start becoming atheist?
and what made u change your mind

 

[dpunk]

Dpunk, an offtopic question

Have you always been an atheist? if not
when did u start becoming atheist?
and what made u change your mind

I was a Christian. I let go of Christianity around January this year if I remember right, and let go of the belief in any Theistic God soon after. There wasn't any circumstantial reasons or anything, it was more along the lines of me waking up one day and thinking to myself, "Is all the stuff I believe really true?". Subsequently, I began a long and hard thought process. I looked at what I believed, saw how dumb it looked when you start with no presuppositions and take an arbitrary look at it, saw that it was completely ungrounded, looked for evidence and found none, and concluded that my belief was undoubtedly false. I looked to other Theistic religions, and found the same pattern in them as well. I then concluded that the only possible God was a Deistic God, which had no bearing on my life and was thus unnecessary to take much note of in the way I lived my life.

 

[Spereff]

Shifting the initial burden of proof to ask the nonbeliever for evidence against the evidence-less notion is a logical fallacy. It isn't necessary to disprove something that has never had any valid evidence given for it in the first place.

I see your point. Still, as a believer I put my faith into God, due to my own beliefs and experiences.

Yes God can let everyone survive, he's omnipotent.

Why would God let everyone survive? Would that be an equal world? God isn't like that, he's an angry, jealous God. (some sides of him) Yes, he COULD let everyone survive. But he doesn't. A world with surviving 100% of the time isn't much of a world.

God doesn't have to do anything. He could remove death from this world in an instant. He could remove suffering from this world in an instant, and yet he doesn't. He could show himself to the world and make everyone a believer in an instant, and yet he doesn't. It seems that God doesn't do much.

Psh, remove death? The population of the earth would grow extremely quickly, and our lives would be very harsh. Death balances the world. There's life and death, that's how a regular system works. Without knowing suffering and pain, we wouldn't know joy and pleasure. A life with only one biased side, would just equal a regular.

God wants us to believe him through faith. He doesn't want us to judge him like that. Why would he appear on the Earth, just for someone like you?

 

[dpunk]

I see your point. Still, as a believer I put my faith into God, due to my own beliefs and experiences.

Again, I said valid evidence.

Why would God let everyone survive? Would that be an equal world? God isn't like that, he's an angry, jealous God. (some sides of him) Yes, he COULD let everyone survive. But he doesn't.A world with surviving 100% of the time isn't much of a world.

Says who? What reason is there against a world in which everyone lives?

Psh, remove death? The population of the earth would grow extremely quickly, and our lives would be very harsh. Death balances the world. There's life and death, that's how a regular system works.

He could control the birth rate. He could expand the Earth to provide room for the new infants. There's an unlimited number of things he could do to eliminate death.

Without knowing suffering and pain, we wouldn't know joy and pleasure. A life with only one biased side, would just equal a regular.

He could remove suffering and pain and still make us feel joy and pleasure. Being omnipotent he can edit the way our mind works. There's so many possibilities.

God wants us to believe him through faith. He doesn't want us to judge him like that. Why would he appear on the Earth, just for someone like you?

If he appeared and made himself apparent, there would be no need for faith, and everyone could believe. If he really wants people to believe, that would be the way to do it.

 

[stevenadrien2]

Pretty sure, even if he appeared, not everyone would believe.

They will always be the skeptics.

 

[Shredderbeam]

So this means your contradicting what he says, if you catch my drift.

No, I'm actually confirming it. I find your belief that Atheists are unintelligent laughable, when stastically, they have higher I.Q.'s than believers.

Actually not all Christian faiths believe that you go to hell if you are bad. I.e. some believe that only those who actually see Christ and deny him become sons of perdition.

Yet that's just making up your own religion. The Bible explicitly goes over the suffering that non-believers endure.

So you're saying that no matter what you do in life, everyone will do the EXACT same things the EXACT same way? We're here to be tested. -.-

If you ran two copies of the universe at the exact same time, and each had no knowledge of the other, etc., why would one turn out any differently than the other?

 

[Spereff]

Says who? What reason is there against a world in which everyone lives?


He could control the birth rate. He could expand the Earth to provide room for the new infants. There's an unlimited number of things he could do to eliminate death.

Control the birth rate...so he would have to configure a lot of things in the world today. I think that the world is balanced well and is functioning properly in our world today. In a world where EVERYONE LIVES, that would be horrible. There would be no death...life is just eternal on Earth? People live and die, that's a perfect way in life.

He could remove suffering and pain and still make us feel joy and pleasure. Being omnipotent he can edit the way our mind works. There's so many possibilities.

Why? That would be too biased. Pain and suffering would make joy and pleasure feel a lot more better, and enjoyable. Good being compared to bad, makes it even. So you want a world without pain and suffering? Most people would think that it would be glorious and awesome, but later, it gets boring, and it doesn't work out. God organizes the world well.

If he appeared and made himself apparent, there would be no need for faith, and everyone could believe. If he really wants people to believe, that would be the way to do it.

But people still might not believe him...due to their psychological minds? God wants us to have faith in him. Not just appear on Earth out of nowhere, and tell everyone that he is the one. Like I said before, about the even world, he has to balance everything, yet again. There will have to be a certain amount of non-believers out there, to balance out the world. It's just his way of the "good" and "bad."

 

[Shredderbeam]

Since you get to demand proof from everyone, may I ask for your sources confirming that IQs of non-believers are higher than the IQs of believers? Oh, and please give me a passage that "explicitly" explains said suffering and the cause of it.

http://danish.newsvine.com/_news/20...-atheists-are-more-intelligent-than-believers

http://danish.newsvine.com/_news/20...-atheists-are-more-intelligent-than-believers

Read through, etc. I'm sure that Google will turn up a few more, if that's not enough.

One universe could turn out different because of free agency. If I decided to punch a hole in my monitor right now it would lead me to different options than were available if I hadn't done so. Are you suggesting that there is no such thing as agency?

If you list all the factors that would make you punch your monitor, you would see that there would be no difference between them in the two universes (they're identical, remember?). There is no factor that is involved that is not contained in both universes, so you would perform the same action in both universes.

But people still might not believe him...due to their psychological minds?

If God appeared in the sky, rained down fire and brimstone, etc., and boomed out "I am God, and I'm real!", I think that nobody would sincerely disbelieve that. Those that would would be an insignificant enough portion of the population. Their views could safely be disregarded.

God wants us to have faith in him.

If he just appears, then EVERYONE will believe. If he works through faith, then not everyone will believe, leading to more people suffering in hell.

 

[NoLimit]

Wow... another of these god threads.
I don't see the point in arguing about this, if you don't believe in god then don't, if you do then do, it's that simple.

Also, this shit is getting annoying.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Wow... another of these god threads.
I don't see the point in arguing about this, if you don't believe in god then don't, if you do then do, it's that simple.

Also, this shit is getting annoying.

You really don't have to come here if you don't like it.

 

[NoLimit]

You really don't have to come here if you don't like it.

I'll come wherever I please, what gives you the pizazz to tell me where and where not I shall go?

 

[dpunk]

Dpunk, you don't seem to realize that we are here to be TESTED. Not coddled.

Being tested entails that the giver of the test wants to see the results. God knows everything before it happens, therefore has no need of a test.

Control the birth rate...so he would have to configure a lot of things in the world today. I think that the world is balanced well and is functioning properly in our world today. In a world where EVERYONE LIVES, that would be horrible. There would be no death...life is just eternal on Earth? People live and die, that's a perfect way in life.

You're being too closed minded. You only say that it's perfect because you haven't thought of any other possible realities.

Why? That would be too biased. Pain and suffering would make joy and pleasure feel a lot more better, and enjoyable. Good being compared to bad, makes it even. So you want a world without pain and suffering? Most people would think that it would be glorious and awesome, but later, it gets boring, and it doesn't work out. God organizes the world well.

You don't need pain to have pleasure. You just need pain to define pleasure. Whether pain was present in a previous situation or not, you can still feel pleasure, it would be called "normal".

But people still might not believe him...due to their psychological minds? God wants us to have faith in him. Not just appear on Earth out of nowhere, and tell everyone that he is the one. Like I said before, about the even world, he has to balance everything, yet again. There will have to be a certain amount of non-believers out there, to balance out the world. It's just his way of the "good" and "bad."

There doesn't have to be a balance of good and bad. There doesn't have to be a balance of anything when an omnipotent being is involved. There aren't any stipulations on how an omnipotent being could arrange the world, and as much as I say it, I still don't think you understand that.

I'll come wherever I please, what gives you the pizazz to tell me where and where not I shall go?

The fact that he happens to be a moderator of this forum.

 

[NoLimit]

Dpunk, it doesn't matter if he's a mod or not, there are no rules on the Sythe official rules stating that a mod can tell you where and where not you can go.. Your allowed to browse the forums freely, with the thought of being safe. I've not broken any rules, nor disobeyed anyone with superior authority.

Therefore once again, I standby my comment, and stick with it.

 

[dpunk]

Dpunk, it doesn't matter if he's a mod or not, there are no rules on the Sythe official rules stating that a mod can tell you where and where not you can go.. Your allowed to browse the forums freely, with the thought of being safe. I've not broken any rules, nor disobeyed anyone with superior authority.

Therefore once again, I standby my comment, and stick with it.

I would argue that saying that there is no point in this thread and that "this shit is getting annoying" contributes to the discussion. Since Something for All is fairly strict about post quality it could be said that yes, you have broken a rule.

 

[NoLimit]

I would argue that saying that there is no point in this thread and that "this shit is getting annoying" contributes to the discussion. Since Something for All is fairly strict about post quality it could be said that yes, you have broken a rule.

That's not true, I haven't broken any rules. My reply does contribute to the discussion, because I'm expressing my own feelings on the topic. And you say it's about post quality, that is my quality, you don't like it? Deal with it.

 

[dpunk]

That's not true, I haven't broken any rules. My reply does contribute to the discussion, because I'm expressing my own feelings on the topic. And you say it's about post quality, that is my quality, you don't like it? Deal with it.

Posting you're opinion that just condemns the thread without reference to the actual first post at any time hardly contributes to the actual discussion.

 

[NoLimit]

Posting you're opinion that just condemns the thread without reference to the actual first post at any time hardly contributes to the actual discussion.

I don't know if you are illiterate, or have the intellectual IQ of a 10 year old kid.
My first post in fact, did express my thoughts on the very FIRST post [thread maker]. I stated that, if you believe, then believe, if not then don't, I thought I made that quite simple, even for those with very low amount of IQ, obviously I didn't.

 

[dpunk]

I don't know if you are illiterate, or have the intellectual IQ of a 10 year old kid.

It seems like you don't know a lot of things...including that "intellectual IQ" is blatantly redundant.

My first post in fact, did express my thoughts on the very FIRST post [thread maker]. I stated that, if you believe, then believe, if not then don't, I thought I made that quite simple, even for those with very low amount of IQ, obviously I didn't.

The topic of the thread was "This thread disproves god entirely". Saying that you should just believe what you believe is completely not what the original topic is about. It is about the first post disproving God, and when taken into discussion, if in fact it does or not. It seems like you're the one lacking "intellectual IQ".

 

[NoLimit]

It seems like you don't know a lot of things...including that "intellectual IQ" is blatantly redundant.



The topic of the thread was "This thread disproves god entirely". Saying that you should just believe what you believe is completely not what the original topic is about. It is about the first post disproving God, and when taken into discussion, if in fact it does or not. It seems like you're the one lacking "intellectual IQ".

You make no sense, I standby my post, keep playing in your sandbox, as your not a big boy yet.

 

[dpunk]

You make no sense, I standby my post, keep playing in your sandbox, as your not a big boy yet.

A nice little try to shrug off being proven wrong, but sadly you're not enough of a "big boy" to take you're losses.