The debate "All religion is false. If you disagree explain to me how religion is real" was started by
February 8, 2016, 5:18 pm.
66 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 74 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
historybuff posted 11 arguments, atorncanvas posted 1 argument, SocialistRed posted 1 argument, myb03260 posted 1 argument, Pugsly posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
syabab01 posted 6 arguments, Jctrkstr posted 1 argument, oscar90000 posted 2 arguments, stixkilla posted 2 arguments, jfischthecat posted 1 argument, reece posted 1 argument, Vitruvian posted 3 arguments, Voidiq posted 1 argument, lucylou15 posted 1 argument, Alex posted 5 arguments, Sunny posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
Socrates, atorncanvas, omactivate, danielle, Kopano_98, Evelynmurray, sickboyblonde, progressive, AgnosticAcceptor, snehache, myb03260, whymlxxx, MinuteMan101, barman, jellybear, carlos1ja, bigbadtux, YMayy, Pugsly, ERROR275, openparachute, Anjali, historybuff, Juan3261, Iran1998 and 41 visitors agree.
sabrina, Jctrkstr, SocialistRed, stixkilla, voltagerage_21, The_Executioner, ekakus, yanny_banny, meduka, jfischthecat, reece, syabab01, alexoliver, SergioMX, salote, Vitruvian, esje, llemponen, confident, wmd, Voidiq, sgilmour2001, Kurisu_Sky, rinms, Tbh, lucylou15, Alex, Sunny, fadi, inkaanabi_20, pizzalover1127, oscar90000, ProudAmerican888, Maximus, ReedMurphy, ElisaXO, dalton7532, SwaggerPoptart, neveralone and 35 visitors disagree.
or "at dollar dollar"...lol
does @$$ means ' a** ' ?
That's not debating, that is being pointlessly insulting. That is why I welcome president's input even if it disagrees with me and just wish you would stay quiet.
He doesn't want you trying to crawl up his @$$ dave, stay where you are.
Absolutely. I always welcome anyone looking to debate.
looks like a online fight between dave and maximus. ha ha interesting. may i join you people? :-)
Are you planning to reply to the comment itself or was it too complex for you?
you have no starting point.. your whole comment is a bust. Do you feel stupid?
psycho, please, I don't want to laugh. you will never do more research than me if you start now and don't sleep the rest of your life. That's a joke to even say something like that.
Do a basic amount of research and you won't have to ask such blatantly ignorant questions.
We didn't evolve from modern day monkeys, we share a common ancestry. I will explain with a brief comparison to modern people that everyone should understand. It will be a very basic parallel, not a full explanation of the theory, but it should help with the basics.
Imagine your great great grandfather was white and had three sons. One moved to Nigeria, the other China, the third to America. The one who moved to Nigeria married a black woman. Their son married a black woman also. Their children might still have some traits in common with their great great grandfather, but the change in their appearance would likely be pronounced.
The son who moved China married a Chinese woman, as did his son. Again, their child might have some resemblance to their great great grand father, but there would be visible differences. These children would also be very different from each other. They would share a common ancestor, but they look very different.
Your family is a third branch and from conversation I know that you are white. Essentially what you are asking is if they had the same grandfather, how come they look different? And if you are still white, how can you share a past ancestor with those who are not?
Since I know that I'd long I will summarize it very briefly. We share a common ancestor with monkeys, we are not descended from them.
how are women and men so perfect for each other, this two opposites in gender are only able to create life? How are 2 religions seemingly so much alike for the most part except the main characters? How were the pyramids built?
If we evolved from Monkeys, why did some monkeys stay... monkeys?
You had a problem with where he started the video? I didnt feel like the message of the video was affected by when it started. So I would disagree.
"he also made it seem like life if God stopped taking part in the universe we would be fine"
I didnt get that all. There was a part where he told God that one day humans will look beyond earth expecting to find him, but only to find other universes and worlds similar to ours. We would figure out the nature of the universe without the need of God. So it would seem as if God didnt exist. Not that god doesnt exist since he was talking to him.
In my opinion, believing a supreme being is responsible for the universe existing is not a ridiculous belief. Believing this supreme being is Yahweh the ridiculous part.
The Gods that represent each religion were created by primitive men who had a lot of questions with hardly any answers about our nature and our world. The idea of god answered those questions. Many Gods were created to explain the causes of natural occurrences (earthquakes, rain, thunder, etc).
Then science answered those questions, especially about nature. Science has also proved many Gods false believed about our cosmos. To this date, the amount of questions that was once answered with the idea of a God have significantly decreased.
Very briefly this is what science is able to prove about how we came to be:
There was bang about 14 billion years ago. Hydrogen atoms formed. The hydrogen atoms started to clump together under the force of gravity. Now we have a bunch of large clumps of hydrogen fusing together to create helium while releasing large amounts of light, also know as stars. Just like our sun. The gravity from our star causes objects to orbit it. Like Earth. For a while our planet was bombarded by asteroids, meteors and comets and became a molten planet. As it was cooling our atmosphere was created. Eventually the molten cooled down to form land. Then Clouds formed which created rain and gave us oceans. This eventually brought life. The process of evolution and natural selection eventually evolved that life to us. We are all made our of stardust.
When i put what we know in perspective, and understood how religion came to be; The claims about the nature of the gods described in religious text sounds fiction.
This is my reason why God is a ridiculous claim.
I think so.
here is the asterisk in the story... ALL will know him. Maybe too late.. maybe when you are in passing. But you will know him and your knee will bow. What a great feeling when you don't believe and then you see too late that he was real all along, Right?!? If nothing else you actually learned the truth for sure, right????
I don't know where to start on the "God Exists" video. there was a lot wrong with it. the biggest problem was the guy didn't start at the beginning, but after people rejected God, and went to India, or China to worship false God's. he also made it seem like if God stopped tacking part in the universe we would be fine. this is false as without God there is nothing, if God left everything woukd return to the original nothingness it was before God created things.
they believe that a mystical being you can't see, hear, or have any proof he exists at all created everything. he used to show himself and prove himself constantly but as the ability to prove these claims became more prevalent he stopped completely. he demands complete obedience with the punishment of eternal torture but also claims to love you without reservation. he is the Prince of Peace but the church is responsible for millions of deaths. the Pope, God's infallible representative on earth has ordered or otherwise allow the deaths of countless people, and the enslavement of countless more. I can keep going but this is getting long.
He has a video called "if god exists". Give it a watch. Its a bit longer though
like that bad people will be punished, or that stuff didn't come from nothing by itself?
Catholics believe in an illogical system with no evidence. that is rediculous by any standard.
Good video, the problem is that catholicism isn't "ridiculous", nor is believing in a God. he has a point, but it would need to be true only if the claim was ridiculous. for example a child being told killing others Is good.
does that guy have a video saying why God is a "ridiculous claim"
On the contrary, not everyone without a religion is an " atheist ". Agnostics, gentlemen, agnostics. IMHO, I believe that religions are teachings that were created by our own subconscious minds. But when boiled down to the very essence, it is all about development of unconditional love. The Bible for instance, " God hates incest "," God says, no eating these and that " seems absurd or rather tyrannical for some,but when approached from a different perspective, all is done solely for the survival of the human race. An unconditional love from a higher mind, to us.
Ok for some reason its not pulling up the video. Just look up "dark matter 2525, Ridiculous " on youtube
https://youtu.be/xdm9jat-I6w wrong video lol
This is why religion is false. This is also why even intelligent people can believe in extraordinary claims.
We needed numbers, so we thought of numbers to use.
God does not need us (if existent).
Why would he create us?
You know how we created numbers?
We tried to think of something to keep track of days, sheep, etc.
Once we had better minds, we thought of ways that represented multiple of these 1s.
We didn't actually create numbers. We just use writing to represent amounts that we've put in our heads. We think of numbers
Can you confirm this?
No religion is false because no religion
teaches to take gun in hand or to kill someone its few people who have this kind of mentallity
many have tried to prove the bible has contradictions. you go ahead.
truth of Christianity, it the only religion that you can find sources outside of the Bible, holy book, that confirm that it's true
I did and it has many contradictions in its story and it's moral base. If you want me to pick a few out I can.
go read the bible :)
I couldn't understand chunks of that. but what I could read didn't prove anything at all. you have no evidence that one religion is more true than any other. they cant all be right. and without any significant evidence for any of them the logical conclusion is they are false.
okay i will explain if Religion is Real! As you know if someone has religion is definitely has God! And If some of the people dont believe If Religion is real, automatically they dont believe with God or we can called that Atheist. Well, did you know, Where is from number of one was born? How about with number of two is born from 1+1 or 2+2=4? if you know if number of 1 is single. it can make the another number, but it cant made by another word, So What's your trouble to understanding if there's a god that can making something but something cant make it? So, Using your logic to get well. If Someone has religion they are definitely have Book that Has guide their life i mean like Alqur'an, bible or the etc. it teach us how a get well life in the world or after we died, and it teach us to get better life and running from crime.. So, I trust and feel from nowaday if God always beside us and our pray is answered by him.. and he is really and really AVAILABLE!
he didn't say that religion didn't exist. he said religion is false. I can write 1+1=5. it is real, I wrote it. but it's still false. religion can be both real and false.
Due to the wording of the original statement, I can honestly say it is real, because it exists and there are religious people in the world.
Therefore, religion is real.
yes spread the word of god. not argue about the word of god.
Thanks. I'll check them out as I have time.
Probably the best site would be Dr Hugh Ross' reasons.org. He's a Christian astrophysicist and fascinates me frankly. Any of his books are great reading as well. Dr Michael Behe's Darwin's Black box is a very good one, especially his explanation on the complexity of blood clotting. Discovery.org is a good one. Drs David Berlinski, William A Dembski, Stephen C Meyer's books are good sources. You can youtube a lot of their talks and debates. I find Berlinski's talks to be particularly convincing. Didn't mean to overwhelm you, hope these help!
What books /resources did you read to learn about it? I'm aware this is not directly related to the debate, but I am interested in the subject.
I agree with you both; Mayhem and Historybuff. In a nutshell I was once agnostic and became a believer from researching. I became convinced there is in fact a God much the same as the famous atheist philosopher Anthony Flew who recently became a believer due to the abundance of evidence in the fine tuning of the universe. That convinced me the universe is not an accident. It's fascinating actually if you read deep into the fine tuning and is to me at least overwhelmingly convincing and irrefutable.
mayhem has a point. it's not that he existed that matters. he likely did exist, he isn't fictional. a man named Jesus of Nazareth did live. but all of the stories about him did not get written down at the time. they became stories passed from person to person for decades if not centuries before they were recorded.
and as to the knowledge of the writers. they write at least 40 years after the death of Jesus. the average life span was alot shorter back then. the odds that anyone who was an adult at the death of Jesus was still alive 40 years later is pretty low.
so I suppose it would be kinda like writing about ww1 today if you had never read a book about it. all you knew about it was some stories that someone who wasn't there told you. and then you write about it. how accurate would your writing be?
Jesus existing is only relevant if you believe jesus was a god/or the son of god. To everyone else ,his actual existence is irrelevant when discussing whether or not a supreme being designed /monitors us or not.
With all due respect I don't see how anyone can summarily write Jesus off as a myth. Aren't you allowing your confirmation bias to cloud your decision? Are the 2 Roman historians recording popular myths? I do stand corrected that their writings were after His death but many of Jesus' contemporaries were still living and it would be tough to pass off a myth especially recording it as fact in Roman written history. Why would they? Neither were Christian and Josephus was Jewish. It would be similar to someone today writing of the Vietnam war or WW2 wouldn't it? To me it's a pointless discussion of God's existence if Jesus' existence is not established.
Fair enough. I had missed the line addressing the post to DarkDerpy.
Dave if you read the conversation I was giving verses that disprove what DarkDerpy said which was "God never asked any christian to speak for him." so I can use the bible on a Christian.
Alex, those lines from the Bible don't prove Christianity true any more than the parallel lines from the Quran prove that. Every religion has scripture and most are mutually exclusive, so how does yours provide better proof than any other?
are facts and logic different over in Canada because your logic isn't very logical.
well since my arguments are based in facts and evidence I would have to say they aren't pointless or useless. well I suppose they are useless on you since you don't actually care if your views have any facts or evidence.
my advise to you historybuff is to give up on your pointless, useless debate comments, but whatever.
my advice is to give up on your pointless, useless invisible friend. but to each their own I suppose.
DarkDerpy not sure why you think that...
Matthew 9:37-38 Then He said to His disciples, ?The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. ?Therefore beseech the Lord of the harvest to send out workers into His harvest.?
Matthew 28:19-20 ? ?Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.?
2 Timothy 1:11
for which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle and a teacher.
The word of the LORD came to Jonah the son of Amittai saying, "Arise, go to Nineveh the great city and cry against it, for their wickedness has come up before Me."
"And he said, 'The God of our fathers has appointed you to know His will and to see the Righteous One and to hear an utterance from His mouth. 'For you will be a witness for Him to all men of what you have seen and heard.
we are all called to be a priest prophet and King in the name of jesus. the Prophet part means teaching about Jesus and spreading the truth. my advise is pray for those so God will open their minds to his will
No whole point in trying to prove something when at the end of the day they'll stand strong with what they think. Let's just wait till were all dead and we will then see. Am I right? Can't change someone's mind by arguing. If they don't want to believe they don't have to. Has no affect towards anyone who is a believer in Christ. God never asked any christian to speak for him. He will speak for himself.
I do own a Bible actually. I read those passages. how are they related to what we're talking about?
The Internet has a Bible. Anyone connected connected with it has one.
I am curious what you feel those particular verses prove though.
I seriously doubt historybuff has a bible.
get your bible and open it in Romans 16:16 ang Acts 20:28
the best estimate for Jesus' Crucifixion is 30-36 CE. Josephus was born 37 CE and his writings start around 75 CE.
Tacitus was born in 56 CE and only wrote about Christians in his last work. neither author wrote about Christ until at least 40 years after his death. during that time Christianity had grown to have significant numbers of followers and Jesus would be more mythical than historical. their works can't be taken at face value since they were not witnesses.
Interesting.. Biblical scholar Gary Habermas adds, "What is usually meant is that the New Testament has far more manuscript evidence from a far earlier period than other classical works. There are just under 6000 NT manuscripts, with copies of most of the NT dating from just 100 years or so after its writing. Classical sources almost always have less than 20 copies each and usually date from 700-1400 years after the composition of the work. In this regard, the classics are not as well attested.
I think we can lay to rest Jesus' existence and that there is no evidence of it and move on the PschDave's statement, i.e evidence of his life.
I was responding to historybuff. Historybuff with all due respect how can you refute the following and say there is zero evidence of Jesus' historicity? The Roman historians Tacitus and Josephus were contemporaries of Jesus and most definitely wrote about him during Jesus' lifetime. All of the Pauline epistles and 3/4 of the New testament books were written around 55-60 AD or within 20 years of Jesus' death. So what do you base, "there are no writings about Jesus from within his lifetime. there are no writings about Jesus within a generation of his lifetime." and conclude there is no evidence of Jesus?
Good point PschyDave and I'll respond to that momentarily.
I reread the arguments to find who said there was no evidence of Jesus existence and couldn't see it. Who were you responding to?
It's generally accepted that Jesus was a real person (several Jesus' existed actually). What is questionable is the story of his life. Chris Angel frequently performs feats that could be described as miraculous, and there is video and eyewitness accounts of his impossible exploits. That doesn't mean he is divine. It us even harder to credit stories that were written years or decades after Jesus death as being factually correct. These accounts would be easy to exaggerate through retelling until they took on far more power than originally shown. A more recent example would be John Henry's tale.
there are no writings about Jesus from within his lifetime. there are no writings about Jesus within a generation of his lifetime. that is long enough for a person to pass from a person into a legend. so while it is very likely Jesus of Nazareth existed, there is no definitive evidence that he did.
and even if he did, nothing else about his life can be backed up. his whole life is more myth than historical fact.
To say that there is "no evidence" for Jesus' existence is simply untrue and show's a bias for that position without having researched the subject. At least 2 contemporary Roman historians of the time wrote about Jesus. Josephus and Tacitus. They both spoke of his existence and Tacitus wrote of his execution which he wouldn't have done had he not been a real person. It's interesting researching this subject and very few scholars deny he actually existed.
I can't speak for him, but pretty much all of it. Mohammad was very aware of Christianity and Judaism. he used it to create his own religion. a religion that would follow him and obey him. at least Christianity and Judaism weren't created to be dictatorships. but since all religions are based on ignorance and fear, the specific faults of your religion aren't really important.
which part especially islam dat you still didnt agree.?
I really don't beleive in religion n any GOD for that matter. but religion did play an important role in ur human being social n in our current state. its like an necessary lie.
parts of that were very wrong. science is based on evidence so saying there is no proof for science is just patently wrong.
I'm not sure you totally grasp what the word theory means in a scientific sense. theories can be definitively proven and still be considered theories. so while you're right, alot of science is "theories" but these theories are proven to be correct.
no part of religion has been proven to be correct.
Depends. There is no proof for religion, but no proof for science either.
You can say "The bible" but that was written ages ago and we have no way of telling if it was the truth or not.
You can say "Einstein" but he stated that science was a theory. There can be proof for theories, but this proof is only based on other theories.
So really, all religion isn't false, and all science isn't false.
Which is why I am an atheist agnostic. I'm pretty sure there isn't a god, but can't be certain.
its better if you watch dr zakir naik's speech.try search at youtube about sign of existence of God.i cant explain better than him.
What signs have proven it?
dear history buff.do you want to look at the face of God?that ridiculous. only sign that can prove it'll.
Religion is real because people created religions. Religion is likely false because each one has been demonstrated to be inaccurate and incorrect when they make concrete claims. These errors are understandable considering they were made hundreds or thousands of years ago, but they still demonstrate that at least some aspects of the religions are false.
that's like saying bigfoot is real because he's real. repeating it doesn't count as evidence. the bottom line is there is no evidence god exists.
religion is real because it is real.. I mean really.. religion resistance real because of the real religion
my opinion is,was there in Bible,Talmud, or Veda tell about the world exist by 6 phase?pain receptor in skin,how tectonics plate of earth moving,phase of human born,and many more?of course there didn't. there are many fact that have written in holy Koran about 1400 years ago.
Religion is absolutely real because all it is, is an idea that people put all their faith in because they believe it.
that doesn't mean anything they believe in is real.
Seeming real to am individual is different from being true. Whether religion seems real to its adherents is not relevant to whether it is false.
To argue that it is false, someone would have to show proof that it is not true, which has been done with regards to the many creation stories amongst other things. To argue that it is true, you would need to demonstrate proof that your beliefs are true, not just that you believe them.
I didn't mean to disagree or agree with u
religion is something you believe in so that makes it real to that individual
God is unfalsifiable meaning he can be neither proven nor disproven. Much like fairies and leprechauns.
To clarify something, is this question attacking organized religion or god's existence. My vote might change depending.
no. there is no definitive evidence Jesus of Nazareth existed. it is likely a man with that name existed, but not proved. beyond that very little of religion has any evidence at all, let alone is proven.
Christianity is based on stories with little to no supporting evidence. children's stories have about as much evidence.
tell me something with Christianity not true, Jesus existed is fact, the rest of promises get more and more proved every time
I guess we'll fin out when were dead. smh. People who don't have belief in anything except science. Well that's on you. Science isn't everything.
humans have lived a lot longer than 6k years. and asteroids have stuck the earth. your point is not valid.
The earth is not 6k years old. And second, even though science can answer your question, if it couldn't, it wouldnt be evidence a god exits. It would be evidence of our ignorance.
I am too. it is ignorant to assume God does or does not exist. in order for him to be real. how does one explain how we survived so many extinction level event asteroids in 6k years
I dis agree because religion is a Belief(a thought,opinion, how ever u wanna put it it's in your own head) u can't really say someone doesn't believe if they say they do believe so the argument that all religion is false is a vague and incomplete statement.. I can take u to different country's states cities where ever n show u the many different people and there religions.. what u really want to say what they are believing can be considered false because there's no physical evidence or no pictures no videos nothing that they're"GOD" existed so I agree with what the religious belief is is false
don't you see how cat Stevens being a Muslim?
how true the religion shown are by the fact on their holy book,prophet sayings.
You cannot, by definition, prove that something does not exist. All you can ever say is that the we have yet to see evidence of its existence.
That said, it is unlikely that any religion I have encountered is true since they all rely on supernatural forces and events, which have largely been disproven. Examples would be the many creation stories which have all Ben demonstrated to be false. Whether birthed by a goddess, created from nothingness or chaos, or from some form of egg, all religious creation myths that I have ever read are fairly thoroughly disproven at this point. Many religious groups have worked around this by claiming that their story is meant to by symbolic rather than literal, but this just accepts that a tenet of their beliefs is untrue and needed to be modified.
Not that I am picking sides yet, but how do we know all religons are false? Is the proof that god isn't real? If so please tell me. I am an agnostic right now
to be fair his topic sentence says all religions are false. I think you should take his argument as that and not the follow up.
In all likelihood all religions are false. However, it is still real. It may not be truth, but religion and it's teachings are very real unfortunately....