Dumb arguments for and against god.

So you're either a Nihilist or a Solipsist then.

I really just want to ask you a question, qhy do you want to argue with the people that believe in God? cause I don't think you can make them change their mind or anything.

If someone has an open mind, I believe they can be convinced through reason and evidence. However I agree usually the person I'm arguing with won't change their mind. that doesn't, however, mean that people reading the conversation, who may be on the fence, might not see that my arguments defeat my opponent's, and I have thusly, by proxy convinced some people of something they might not have thought of before.



Actually, yes it does. At least in a colloqual sense. Yes, you CAN accept something that you cannot explain, but why should you? I mean what justification would you have? "I can't explain this in any way, but I'm accepting it anyhow." I mean, look at that sentence and explain to me why that's a teneble position to hold

Yes, because I have evolved to have a brain, as have the rest of the kingdom of animalia.



Because I was evolved as a biped with arms, and the fact that I have one on my left side, which we designate to be the left side, balances out my right side.



Yes. Oxytocine levels in my brain change due to different enviornmental effects.



Yes, according to evidence homosapiens are a result of an allelic change in an earlier ancestor.



Well that's a silly question. I accept that the internet exists because I can experience it and can demonstrate that I can use it. Ithas nothing to do with explaining how it 'works'.



Quantum fluctuations in the initial singularit caused outword expansions in all directions of all matter. Dark energy causes the expansions to continue at exponential rates, causing the universe to grow on and on until it reaches a heat death.



The thing is, I can explain why I accept everything I accept. I dont' 'just accept' anything, and I make it a point to do that. What you're advocating here is ignorance. Why? Why are you satisfied with being ignorant of everything All those things you asked if I could explain, I CAN explain, couldn't you? And if you couldn't, will you not appreciate the fact that you can now? Before you accept ANYTHING as a fact, you must first examine it, and make sure it's a fact.

I don't advocate ignorance. Sorry, we're at a fundamental disagreement.

>Mfw another religion thread by ANYBODY AT ALL.

I think getting into the argument at all, no matter which side you're on, is pretty stupid. it's not like either side is going to convince the other they're wrong. no matter which way you go you have to decide for yourself. if you let someone else's opinion influence you, you haven't really decided.


when ever someone brings it up around me... "oh, you are religious/athiest? good for you, now STFU." i'm so sick of this shit.

best thread EVER!
it's called "Dumb arguments for and against god"; we get to post our arguments about God, and Biglundi will call it dumb! I don't know how to express my thanks to biglundi, but I'll think of something

/sarcasm

I assummed that was the reason he put that up. this IS a thread about dumb arguments after all. I figured it was a shared laugh at "wow, that really WAS dumb, thanks for that". But, I suppose you'd prefer to think I was simply caliing a serious argument dumb...that's not how I roll baby. If I really were to address a seriously made argument, I'd explain WHY it was dumb.

I was going to bring this up. That Ontological Argument that was mentioned in the OP is a sound argument.

But not for proving God's existence.

It is an argument that proves that IF there is a God, there is only one. This argument was invented by St. Thomas Aquinas in the Medieval period. This was a time when everyone believed there was a God. I believe Charles Darwin was the first person to ever mention anything about there NOT being an All Powerful creator (and Darwin comes from the Victorian Era, a much later time period).

Anyone who uses the Ontological argument to prove God exists is stupid. 'Nuff said.

Let's just say this:
We cannot prove there is a God.
And we cannot prove there is no God.

I think that statement show make both sides a bit more happy.

Darwin's Theory of Evolution is just that, a theory. Claiming that it is a fact and spreading that claim is as asinine as a Christian telling you to believe in God just because.



See above statement.



Again, what is the proof?




Actually you are not explaining anything based on fact. Explanations of just about anything deemed factual are actually based on the experiences and research of people that have been deemed credible. You claim that you must examine something to be sure that it is factual, except that you don't do that. You rely on others to do that for you. You have faith that their knowledge and experience will be able to provide with a fact.

For example, let's say that you have never been to Australia. If that is true, then you cannot claim that it is a fact that it exists. You claim to know that it exists but in reality you believe that it exists. Everyone tells you that it exists. People have claimed to been there before. There are photos. There are many reasons to believe that it exists, but how can you be sure that any of that is true? Faith. That is how. You put faith in those deemed credible by society to tell you what is factual. To deny this is ignorance on your part.

You believe that there is a brain in your head because that is what you have been taught. Unless you cut open your head, you cannot know that you have a brain. People can tell you that you have a brain. Machines can tell you that you have a brain. Science can tell you that you have a brain. You put faith in the individuals and ideas that tell you this because they appear to be credible.

Perhaps you feel that same way about, maybe, the theory of gravity and you might just float away.

>2011
>Not understanding the theory of evolution

Not at all, but do you care to explain why you believe so?





Unwarranted self-importance.




You should have made a serious thread about it, or not have made this thread in the "serious discussion" section.

and you put this thread in "serious discussion"?