The debate "God is definitely not real humans made up god" was started by
April 12, 2015, 4:06 pm.
86 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 123 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.
AtheistOfHappiness posted 1 argument, manojtranscendence posted 1 argument, I_Voyager posted 3 arguments, irishstraw posted 1 argument, debunked26 posted 4 arguments, unfitzangetsu posted 3 arguments, The_lamp posted 1 argument, pajrc1234 posted 2 arguments, sdiop posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
tr posted 1 argument, Chabii posted 1 argument, AdamChase posted 1 argument, debunked26 posted 1 argument, evamara posted 1 argument, GetRekt posted 2 arguments, toughgamerjerry posted 1 argument, The_lamp posted 1 argument, Alex posted 10 arguments, windu2420 posted 1 argument, PsychDave posted 1 argument, historybuff posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
transfanboy, Shuttey, Sosocratese, Shreedeep, Mastermind, sugoi_shan, Hjkp98, jesusorgy, AtheistOfHappiness, DesolatedRoses, I_Voyager, AwfulOctopus, manojtranscendence, jonatron5, sighnomore99, skyfrancois_97, irishstraw, sdiop, kyopsis23, debunked26, unfitzangetsu, danielle, soullesschicken, action007man, jedty, clockstopper, Zero0, omfgcandy, PlatypusParty, lararea, kyaah, Upbeatethan, Argumention, justicepanda77, Georgi_ZKL24, Afshin, pajrc1234, ADrunkenRobot, Nury, wmgreen00, debater and 45 visitors agree.
pretty_twin, tr, Kirito, ufufugh, judge, Shahmir, wmd, Chabii, raz, AdamChase, ibrahim, scooter6381, Zach_Hill, toughgamerjerry, cambater, CountryBoy1776, Pamelamccubbins, DavidStuff777, evamara, GetRekt, Dbass24, Damn3d, WordSpeller, danval130, prisonmanic, Weakley, InfiniBro, WesleySr, owentowe, historybuff, The_lamp, vumtucks, fgarcia505, Bxat9, INDIA, amanofprogress, kay_joey1101, invincible_01, sabrina, Ashna, Enigma, R3dD0g, Alp4president, denno27, Alex, stevenchen, Dysfunctional, AndRea, KicknRush, windu2420, AstroSpace, ThePraxeologist, TheChosenProphecy, thecries and 69 visitors disagree.
Then why was there debate in the Catholic Church for more than 300 years about it?
Christ taught the trinity.
Are you honestly so conceited that you believe that yours is the only possible answer? Following Christ could mean following his teachings. Belief in the trinity is separate.
and that Jesus is God.And in everything jesus did. Christian mean "follower of Christ" if you don't believe in what Christ said then how can you be christian. Christ spoke if the father, and spirit, but only one God.
Christianity is simple you are christian if you believe in jesus and what he said. if you don't believe in jesus, or things he said you are not christain. you also need to follow Christ, and believe he is God and he is just.
Your church teaches that you must believe in the trinity to be Christian. Other Christian faiths disagree. Yours is the biggest, that does not mean yours gets to define everyone else. You can be Christian without believing in the trinity.
there are lots of Christian groups that reject the Trinity. it is not required to be a Christian. if you believe in God and Jesus being the son of God you are a Christian.
Jesus said the father, son and holy spirit. if you reject the trinity you are not christain. you can still be christain and not be catholic.
And I agreed that the trinity is dogma now, but it was not always. Are you standing by your statement that anyone who is not Catholic is not Christian, or is it possible for someone to believe in what Jesus said and did without believing in the trinity?
you brought up the Catholic priests thing. so I explained catholic beliefs. One cannot be christian without believing in everything jesus did and said.
The trinity was not always the most important, in fact until the Council of Nicaea it was not even part of the church dogma. I am not denying it is important to Catholicism now, but this was not always true. Furthermore, Catholicism is not the only denomination of Christianity. Essentially you are claiming that you can't be Christian if you aren't Catholic, which is patently untrue.
the trinity has always been the most important, if I said today that the trinity is false i would no longer be catholic, even if I claim to be.
I agree, belief in the trinity is now integral to being Catholic. The point was that that was not always true, and that Catholicism is not the only denomination of Christianity. You argued that it was a requirement to be Christian, not Catholic.
the trinity is the MOST IMPORTANT doctrine of the Catholic church. you can't be catholic says the church unless you believe the trinity. those priests were most likely excommunicated and declared herotics. in my opinion the qualifications to be a member of a group are decided by the leaders of the group. in this case I don't decide if what I belive is catholic, the Catholic Church does.
Also, to paraphrase you, just because you say someone isn't Christian doesn't mean they are not.
There were Catholic priests who did not believe in the trinity. They believed that Jesus was the son of God, but not God himself since God has always been and Jesus had not. Could you explain why they were not Christian?
well he can explain why it is false instead of spouting it out randomly.
what you said, according to him
People debating on this topic seem to be keeping logic or science and religion apart. Even if they try to put some logic their knowledge on religion(various religions practised by people of non-western world is not understood by westerns) is narrow.
Your arguments are flawed.
Christ is the 2nd person in the trinity to be a true follower of Christ you need to believe in him fully. so the trinity is required to believe.
I looked into it, found a good article from duke university, so I know it is trustworthy. the ones it said believed in no God was a native American religion that belive in a great spirit. Quakers who believe in a mini God like inner spirit that tells them what to do. the buddist said not to listen to the gods, so that must mean, the starter of their religion believed in God.
Also, did you actually look into them or are your denials again based purely on your preconceived ideas?
Why is believing in the trinity a requirement? I believe you said Christianity means follower of Christ, not follower of the trinity.
Christians must believe.
1. Jesus is the son of God.
2. Jesus rose on the third day.
3. the trinty.
if you don't believe those, you can't be a christian.
just because you call yourself a Christian does not mean you are one.
Alex, you may want to do some research into branches of Christianity because you are wrong.
Look up Christian atheism or nontrinitarianism.
umm the lamp
you can't be christian if you don't believe in jesus. Christian literally means "follower of Christ"
That's actually a famous statement, called "Pascal's Wager."
The problem, though, is that this can be made with any of the religions. If a different religion is right, you will burn in their hell. And the reason why I'm atheist is that I know how the human mind works. Humans will always and have always had this "fear" element in life. The fear is usually about having something bad if you don't do this, and that is a reason for some people to do things. Humans also have a tendency for always trying to answer things that are beyond the species's knowledge for now. These are the top two reasons for creating the three major religions today. People will try to explain the unknowns with a deity, though they don't back up the explanation with observations or logic. The reaction in the human mind will either reject the theology or accept it. The thinking for accepting is that they can't explain it, so it's probably the only explanation. Rejecting it however, requires a bit more thought to it. Instead of saying that humans can't explain it so it must mean the god exists, they say it's just unknown, and could be explained once the human race expands, or may not be answered at all. Another way to try to persuade someone to join is to use the fear element. This would be Hell, or some other punishment that is usually received after death. It is quite lousy, though, since the target doesn't believe it even exists, but some use the Pascal's Wager to do this. The loss of actually doing it is that it's not by chance if one is right and one isn't, it's which one actually happened. The actual loss is being unable to think for yourself, or not understand the world. If we just said things were because of God, then we can't really use that to progress the species, can we? If an electric shock was because of God, then I can't know how to make one myself and would never be able to create something electrical.
Actually, thank you for arguing this, because I really got to think about how it actually works. It is making me interested in psychology and has made me turn three sentences into about 20 (probably more).
yahshua* not yahoshua
I am merely giving a different perspective to those who see religion in black and white so I'm not looking for a debate on this particularly.
I am a orthadox christian to an 'extent' but was agnostic at one point. While studying Geology after some time I felt it too obvious that there be a God. Again I am not asking you to believe as I feel one should find God on their own accord and carry God in his heart not his mouth. BUT I am aware throughout the centuries religion - the bible has been moulded by man. Plot twist, I don't believe in Jesus as I believe this to be the image of the catholic occultist called Cesar Borgia. Instead I believe in yahoshua and abide only by the 10 commandments. (I also think 1 of the 3 abrahamic religions never actually was and in fact has a major underlying political agenda and maintains it's size by using fear and manipulation. I assume you know which one but that's without not much research. )
I've changed my mind on several debate discussions, and I've seen other people change their minds. Usually when I witness people completely unwilling to change their minds it's in the discussion of religion. Though I consistently see people defeating religious arguments with better logic or arguments from reality, I see people who believe in religions falling back on a view like "We're all so set in our ways we'll never change our minds."
In my case I've come to where I am philosophically because I've consistently changed my mind given data. I began not knowing anything, was indoctrinated into Catholicism, self-determined my disbelief and became agnostic, sought our spiritual and scientific information, concluded upon atheism, discovered philosophy, flip-flopped from socialism to objectivism to my own brand of open-source anarchism and am now in the process of designing a complete philosophy.
What saddens me is witnessing the efforts people put into describing the facts of reality and how they oppose religious views, and seeing religious people cling to faith. But you are young. This means your brain is in a state of constant development still. You should take advantage of this natural opportunity you have to change your mind on the subject of faith. Stop believing in god and you will find a far more interesting world moving on around you. Or at least consider that the non-religious, scientifically informed value system is plausible.
I know I'm one of the four who've made what you believe to be unethical arguments. I'm curious, who else have you seen do this?
The ones who make no sense bro.
@debunked26, who falls into your category of most? Are you just referring to the people who give out arguments on this debate, which really none by either side on this one are any good? Or do you mean the decisions that people have made?
I do not want to get into this argument because I have been in many others of the exact same argument. If you want to see my arguments just look up other religious arguments.
But just because I haven't had an argument like this before, @unfitzangetsu, People today have not seen God in real life before. But there have been documented times in the Bible where people have talked to God Himself. There have also been documented that Jesus really was on earth and everything the Bible says He did actually happened.
People can get very religious at times. Although you should not make any unethical arguments at any time. If you do that your point will never get across you will only make people made and either they rage quit, or yell back with some more unethical arguments. There are four people on this app that I have seen who have given out unethical arguments, and never apologized for doing so. I have seen myself going into unethical arguments before and I understand that it is very easy to do, but once you see that you have you should apologize for doing so. You will not look bad for gaining control over yourself and showing that you have. Anybody who does try and make that look bad will end up looking bad themselves. Just because I believe that there is a God and that one day He will come and take all His people to heaven, does not mean that I am an uneducated person, or blind for giving arguments with facts why I believe it, or any other kind of insult. We are all different people, not everybody will believe the same religion, not everybody will believe there is a god, not everybody will believe there isn't a god. If you are against that then just get over it because nothing that anybody says about religion on this app will make anybody change their mind. It is a known fact about this app. No matter what you say, everybody on this app believes too strongly about their belief that they will never change their mind and the arguments against each other will never end unless you call it a draw.
Sorry for the long post.
most people on here are blind fools
Well, in some books there's usually a punishment for believing in the wrong god. Not always, but Christian religions have such conditions. Asian religions, not so much. New age spiritualistic are often very flexible too... But Christ and Allah both require you to get it right.
Which is weird because they've got to have pre-knowledge about your success and failure before you get there, due to being omniscient. Which means your response was both desired and accounted for. You would fulfill their expectations every time you got it right or wrong.
But there could be a general god with limited knowledge that would just want people to try to achieve X conditions and only be judged if they failed past a threshold. But in such a situation I should hope even the fact of belief is considered to be a non-factor, merely how one maintained their relationship with the world they lived in, whether they left it a better place than when they got there. I couldn't see judging people on how well they revered authority ever being a godly attitude. No religion which pitches that god at me validates that god's position as awesome.
okay I see you point on that one. let me put it a different way then what if god is real and created the idea of religion as a test our free will therefore religion would bw the wrong way to go.
the main problem with a debate about this is that everyone has an image of what a god is and in many cases (even in the same religions) this Image can be entirely different.
no one has every seen god in a way to show prove he is there which means no one can know what he wants from his (or their for multiple god religions)
believer's and non - believer's around them therefore there is no way to know if god or gods would exonerate you or anyone else for that matter
unfitzangetzu, probably he might exonerate me cause nobody knows who the real "GOD" is and at least I tried to believe and I think there's nothing wrong with that.
getrekt wat if your God is the wrong version of God then you have believed wrong and in the same boat as atheists like my self
what if there is really a "judgement day?" How will you react about it huh?
believing in God makes u lose nothing if there is really no god but if there is really a God there will be a great lost on your side kid.
atheists have no burden of prove as you can not prove anything with no evidence. in fact I would go as far to say that with the amount of time we as a race have been on this planet the non - existence of any evidence and the constant stripping of "gods powers" that science as done ie weather, seasons and evolution proves that there is no god. its believer's that have the burden as they claim to have prove that god exists and it is the positive exertion
dear, first look at the evidence, then think it a litle bit, God want that we love Him just with faith, no proves!
oceanic creation.... So you came from a rock? what a joke
evolution is fake. Christians have more than faith. and God is real.
says who??? you? False
I have a cult that worships a celestial tea pot now orbiting the sun. However, this tea pot is so small that it will never be found. Because it is undetectable, no one can say for certain that this tea pot does not exist. This is commonly how the religious justify the existence of god. But the burden of proof should lay with believers. Unfortunately athiests have the burden of disproving god's existence. We must recognize though that God is like the celestial teapot which I worship. Humans can not prove that something does not exist. According to this logic, the celestial teapot is just as real as god.
That's not necessarily true.
Every theology is making an assertion to the fact of theology, and it's various claims.
If we accept that theology is an assertion, we accept the assertion is made by the object of assertation (either the preacher, or the holy book, as an example) is made posterior to the position held by the person receiving the theological information. The person who is receiving the theological information may be said to be in a "pretheological" position. Theology must establish the logic of it's assertion as being reasonable to move into from the pretheological position.
So, if there's a 50/50, it may be stated "the theology has a 50/50 chance of being a true assertion". But the pretheological person is 100% in the right unless the theology proves some chance of "trueness" upon which to establish those. Then only against the stated odds the pretheist may come to a conclusion of odds, if they wish. If a conclusion is reached, such as "The theology is wrong." then maybe it can be said the new atheological claim is possibly wrong. But the odds are still based on the quality of the assertion first.
Only when I was an ignorant child did my pretheist state get disrupted by a theological claim. I accepted it for a while, but by fourteen I moved back into a pretheological position. After a while of agnosticism, I concluded an atheological response based on an acceptance of the induction of science. Since then I've followed the philisophical discourse of theology and atheology and consistently I move back to a "pretheological materialism" which must naturally occur prior to any theological claims to an reality with qualia transcendent to the material wold. I've yet to encounter a supporting argument strong enough to validate the theological position as making some "truth statement" from it's assertion. It's not that I'm 50/50 wrong, it's that they appear 1/100 wrong when their arguments are applied against my pretheological position, and in reaction to those theological positions the only logical conclusion I can reach is an atheological reposte.
the fear of man....to be all alone in the oceanic creation..lead to the concept called god.i trust in creation.nature and love.but not the creator.all that man knows is personality..so he gave a name god and a personality.even though climaxes of human consciousness like jesus..buddha exist...they exist not as person...for your eyes they are persons...but they are the ones who gone beyond personality..so conceptualization and categorization of god is disease.
Okay maybe true, but there are some who worship the real God that created us but the problem is, which is worshipping the true God. So your issue is on a 50 50.
Christians believe that yes,there is God and he is real but really nobody knows if God really exists. The only reason why Christians believe that God is real because they have faith.
While I believe this is true, you can't say there is definitely no god because just as you cannot say there is definitely a god because there is no proof either way. I believe the lack of an "intelligent designer" is wrong. If you do believe in a or many gods I ask you, what about evolution? Some of the smartest people in history believe in atheism and evolution.
I'm not religious but you can't be certain that there is no God as you have no proof of that