Total Posts:43|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Good god people !

missmedic
Posts: 390
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 3:33:21 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
I keep seeing arguments for god, "there is proof"...."there is no proof"....."don't need proof just believe"......"you need god to be moral".
Instead of arguing god's existence, I would argue gods necessity, as millions of nonbelievers have proven you do not need god to observe and enjoy nature, live a productive, moral, and useful life.
There's no practical difference between believing and not believe in any gods, there's no practical difference between the existence and non-existence of any gods.
So why do you believe when it makes no difference and there is no need?
Bennett91
Posts: 4,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 3:47:41 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/10/2016 3:33:21 PM, missmedic wrote:
I keep seeing arguments for god, "there is proof"...."there is no proof"....."don't need proof just believe"......"you need god to be moral".
Instead of arguing god's existence, I would argue gods necessity, as millions of nonbelievers have proven you do not need god to observe and enjoy nature, live a productive, moral, and useful life.
There's no practical difference between believing and not believe in any gods, there's no practical difference between the existence and non-existence of any gods.
So why do you believe when it makes no difference and there is no need?

How else are priests suppose to lure in little boys if their parents don't believe and attend church?
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 3:50:12 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/10/2016 3:33:21 PM, missmedic wrote:
I keep seeing arguments for god, "there is proof"...."there is no proof"....."don't need proof just believe"......"you need god to be moral".
Instead of arguing god's existence, I would argue gods necessity, as millions of nonbelievers have proven you do not need god to observe and enjoy nature, live a productive, moral, and useful life.
There's no practical difference between believing and not believe in any gods, there's no practical difference between the existence and non-existence of any gods.
So why do you believe when it makes no difference and there is no need?

..or at the very least, why do you condemn those who function very well without belief?

I think it is because they don't believe it is possible for non believers to make their way through the world as well as believers.

When I was a believer, I assumed non believers were fundamentally different than myself. I now know that is simply not the case.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
missmedic
Posts: 390
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 3:58:53 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/10/2016 3:50:12 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/10/2016 3:33:21 PM, missmedic wrote:
I keep seeing arguments for god, "there is proof"...."there is no proof"....."don't need proof just believe"......"you need god to be moral".
Instead of arguing god's existence, I would argue gods necessity, as millions of nonbelievers have proven you do not need god to observe and enjoy nature, live a productive, moral, and useful life.
There's no practical difference between believing and not believe in any gods, there's no practical difference between the existence and non-existence of any gods.
So why do you believe when it makes no difference and there is no need?

..or at the very least, why do you condemn those who function very well without belief?

I think it is because they don't believe it is possible for non believers to make their way through the world as well as believers.

When I was a believer, I assumed non believers were fundamentally different than myself. I now know that is simply not the case.

Believers also skip over the one glaring contradiction about their creator god.
Why does a perfect being need to create?
Why does a perfect being need to create creations that do not need the creator?
graceofgod
Posts: 5,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 4:07:16 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/10/2016 3:33:21 PM, missmedic wrote:
I keep seeing arguments for god, "there is proof"...."there is no proof"....."don't need proof just believe"......"you need god to be moral".
Instead of arguing god's existence, I would argue gods necessity, as millions of nonbelievers have proven you do not need god to observe and enjoy nature, live a productive, moral, and useful life.
There's no practical difference between believing and not believe in any gods, there's no practical difference between the existence and non-existence of any gods.
So why do you believe when it makes no difference and there is no need?

moral by your own standards, what when standards vary...

I guy runs up and stabs you, as by his moral standards you have no right to live because you have two eyes and he only has one...??
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,490
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 4:17:22 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/10/2016 3:33:21 PM, missmedic wrote:
I keep seeing arguments for god, "there is proof"...."there is no proof"....."don't need proof just believe"......"you need god to be moral".
Instead of arguing god's existence, I would argue gods necessity, as millions of nonbelievers have proven you do not need god to observe and enjoy nature, live a productive, moral, and useful life.

too general description... how u gonna "enjoy nature, live a productive/moral/useful? according to who? for example some statistics suggest that "2% of ppl r psychopaths,so out of 7 billion ppl on earth u have "140 million psychopaths. im sure they have productive life also in other ways. not mentioning that 15% almost "psychopaths". every one has his own thinking thats where he gets his "morals" from. subjective.

There's no practical difference between believing and not believe in any gods, there's no practical difference between the existence and non-existence of any gods.

thats false. a religious person for instance have to pay charity or be good to others/help the weak. thats a moral to do regardless of what that particular person believes or thinks of it.

So why do you believe when it makes no difference and there is no need?

its necessary for "morals" to be real that its not influenced by subjectivity, and comes from transcendent source.
Never fart near dog
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 4:18:49 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/10/2016 3:58:53 PM, missmedic wrote:
At 10/10/2016 3:50:12 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/10/2016 3:33:21 PM, missmedic wrote:
I keep seeing arguments for god, "there is proof"...."there is no proof"....."don't need proof just believe"......"you need god to be moral".
Instead of arguing god's existence, I would argue gods necessity, as millions of nonbelievers have proven you do not need god to observe and enjoy nature, live a productive, moral, and useful life.
There's no practical difference between believing and not believe in any gods, there's no practical difference between the existence and non-existence of any gods.
So why do you believe when it makes no difference and there is no need?

..or at the very least, why do you condemn those who function very well without belief?

I think it is because they don't believe it is possible for non believers to make their way through the world as well as believers.

When I was a believer, I assumed non believers were fundamentally different than myself. I now know that is simply not the case.

Believers also skip over the one glaring contradiction about their creator god.
Why does a perfect being need to create?
Why does a perfect being need to create creations that do not need the creator?

Imo, belief in god is a coping mechanism. "I don't know/I'm scared" = "God". It works well for some, so long as they are content with a meaningless answer. If they are, then pointing out flaws in this magical explanation is pointless. Its like trying to treat a symptom rather than the disease.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
graceofgod
Posts: 5,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 4:28:42 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/10/2016 4:18:49 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/10/2016 3:58:53 PM, missmedic wrote:
At 10/10/2016 3:50:12 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/10/2016 3:33:21 PM, missmedic wrote:
I keep seeing arguments for god, "there is proof"...."there is no proof"....."don't need proof just believe"......"you need god to be moral".
Instead of arguing god's existence, I would argue gods necessity, as millions of nonbelievers have proven you do not need god to observe and enjoy nature, live a productive, moral, and useful life.
There's no practical difference between believing and not believe in any gods, there's no practical difference between the existence and non-existence of any gods.
So why do you believe when it makes no difference and there is no need?

..or at the very least, why do you condemn those who function very well without belief?

I think it is because they don't believe it is possible for non believers to make their way through the world as well as believers.

When I was a believer, I assumed non believers were fundamentally different than myself. I now know that is simply not the case.

Believers also skip over the one glaring contradiction about their creator god.
Why does a perfect being need to create?
Why does a perfect being need to create creations that do not need the creator?

Imo, belief in god is a coping mechanism. "I don't know/I'm scared" = "God". It works well for some, so long as they are content with a meaningless answer. If they are, then pointing out flaws in this magical explanation is pointless. Its like trying to treat a symptom rather than the disease.

you are of course entitled to your opinion but you are quite wrong...
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 4:34:05 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
False.

"Humanity is inherently a means towards an end" has implications for purpose, value, ideals, morality, etc.

"Humanity is inherently not a means towards an end" has implications for purpose, value, ideals, morality, etc.

If atheism is true, humanity, necessarily, is inherently not a means towards an end.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 4:34:12 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/10/2016 4:28:42 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 10/10/2016 4:18:49 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/10/2016 3:58:53 PM, missmedic wrote:
At 10/10/2016 3:50:12 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/10/2016 3:33:21 PM, missmedic wrote:
I keep seeing arguments for god, "there is proof"...."there is no proof"....."don't need proof just believe"......"you need god to be moral".
Instead of arguing god's existence, I would argue gods necessity, as millions of nonbelievers have proven you do not need god to observe and enjoy nature, live a productive, moral, and useful life.
There's no practical difference between believing and not believe in any gods, there's no practical difference between the existence and non-existence of any gods.
So why do you believe when it makes no difference and there is no need?

..or at the very least, why do you condemn those who function very well without belief?

I think it is because they don't believe it is possible for non believers to make their way through the world as well as believers.

When I was a believer, I assumed non believers were fundamentally different than myself. I now know that is simply not the case.

Believers also skip over the one glaring contradiction about their creator god.
Why does a perfect being need to create?
Why does a perfect being need to create creations that do not need the creator?

Imo, belief in god is a coping mechanism. "I don't know/I'm scared" = "God". It works well for some, so long as they are content with a meaningless answer. If they are, then pointing out flaws in this magical explanation is pointless. Its like trying to treat a symptom rather than the disease.

you are of course entitled to your opinion but you are quite wrong...

Your "nuh uh" has been noted.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
missmedic
Posts: 390
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 4:35:14 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/10/2016 4:17:22 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 3:33:21 PM, missmedic wrote:
I keep seeing arguments for god, "there is proof"...."there is no proof"....."don't need proof just believe"......"you need god to be moral".
Instead of arguing god's existence, I would argue gods necessity, as millions of nonbelievers have proven you do not need god to observe and enjoy nature, live a productive, moral, and useful life.

too general description... how u gonna "enjoy nature, live a productive/moral/useful? according to who? for example some statistics suggest that "2% of ppl r psychopaths,so out of 7 billion ppl on earth u have "140 million psychopaths. im sure they have productive life also in other ways. not mentioning that 15% almost "psychopaths". every one has his own thinking thats where he gets his "morals" from. subjective.

There's no practical difference between believing and not believe in any gods, there's no practical difference between the existence and non-existence of any gods.

thats false. a religious person for instance have to pay charity or be good to others/help the weak. thats a moral to do regardless of what that particular person believes or thinks of it.

So why do you believe when it makes no difference and there is no need?

its necessary for "morals" to be real that its not influenced by subjectivity, and comes from transcendent source.

Faith based belief is subjective, morality based on said belief is subjective.
There is only one thing we share objectively and it is not a god or gods, it is reality.
We may all preserve reality differently but it does not make reality less real.
For morality to be objective it must be based in the reality we all share.
Millions of nonbelievers have proven time and again that we can be good without gods.
graceofgod
Posts: 5,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 4:36:20 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/10/2016 4:34:12 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/10/2016 4:28:42 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 10/10/2016 4:18:49 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/10/2016 3:58:53 PM, missmedic wrote:
At 10/10/2016 3:50:12 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/10/2016 3:33:21 PM, missmedic wrote:
I keep seeing arguments for god, "there is proof"...."there is no proof"....."don't need proof just believe"......"you need god to be moral".
Instead of arguing god's existence, I would argue gods necessity, as millions of nonbelievers have proven you do not need god to observe and enjoy nature, live a productive, moral, and useful life.
There's no practical difference between believing and not believe in any gods, there's no practical difference between the existence and non-existence of any gods.
So why do you believe when it makes no difference and there is no need?

..or at the very least, why do you condemn those who function very well without belief?

I think it is because they don't believe it is possible for non believers to make their way through the world as well as believers.

When I was a believer, I assumed non believers were fundamentally different than myself. I now know that is simply not the case.

Believers also skip over the one glaring contradiction about their creator god.
Why does a perfect being need to create?
Why does a perfect being need to create creations that do not need the creator?

Imo, belief in god is a coping mechanism. "I don't know/I'm scared" = "God". It works well for some, so long as they are content with a meaningless answer. If they are, then pointing out flaws in this magical explanation is pointless. Its like trying to treat a symptom rather than the disease.

you are of course entitled to your opinion but you are quite wrong...

Your "nuh uh" has been noted.

no problem..
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,490
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 4:41:13 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/10/2016 4:35:14 PM, missmedic wrote:
At 10/10/2016 4:17:22 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 3:33:21 PM, missmedic wrote:
I keep seeing arguments for god, "there is proof"...."there is no proof"....."don't need proof just believe"......"you need god to be moral".
Instead of arguing god's existence, I would argue gods necessity, as millions of nonbelievers have proven you do not need god to observe and enjoy nature, live a productive, moral, and useful life.

too general description... how u gonna "enjoy nature, live a productive/moral/useful? according to who? for example some statistics suggest that "2% of ppl r psychopaths,so out of 7 billion ppl on earth u have "140 million psychopaths. im sure they have productive life also in other ways. not mentioning that 15% almost "psychopaths". every one has his own thinking thats where he gets his "morals" from. subjective.

There's no practical difference between believing and not believe in any gods, there's no practical difference between the existence and non-existence of any gods.

thats false. a religious person for instance have to pay charity or be good to others/help the weak. thats a moral to do regardless of what that particular person believes or thinks of it.

So why do you believe when it makes no difference and there is no need?

its necessary for "morals" to be real that its not influenced by subjectivity, and comes from transcendent source.

Faith based belief is subjective, morality based on said belief is subjective.
There is only one thing we share objectively and it is not a god or gods, it is reality.
We may all preserve reality differently but it does not make reality less real.
For morality to be objective it must be based in the reality we all share.
Millions of nonbelievers have proven time and again that we can be good without gods.

ok u say it has been proven again and again that we can be "good" without God. what do u mean by "good"? according to who? u? society?
Never fart near dog
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 4:54:22 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/10/2016 4:07:16 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 10/10/2016 3:33:21 PM, missmedic wrote:
I keep seeing arguments for god, "there is proof"...."there is no proof"....."don't need proof just believe"......"you need god to be moral".
Instead of arguing god's existence, I would argue gods necessity, as millions of nonbelievers have proven you do not need god to observe and enjoy nature, live a productive, moral, and useful life.
There's no practical difference between believing and not believe in any gods, there's no practical difference between the existence and non-existence of any gods.
So why do you believe when it makes no difference and there is no need?

moral by your own standards, what when standards vary...

I guy runs up and stabs you, as by his moral standards you have no right to live because you have two eyes and he only has one...??

So, you actually don't even understand the concept of morals. That stands to reason considering your religion does not explain morals, but instead commands you to behave a certain way and you do so blindly and ignorantly.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
graceofgod
Posts: 5,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 6:08:22 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/10/2016 4:54:22 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/10/2016 4:07:16 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 10/10/2016 3:33:21 PM, missmedic wrote:
I keep seeing arguments for god, "there is proof"...."there is no proof"....."don't need proof just believe"......"you need god to be moral".
Instead of arguing god's existence, I would argue gods necessity, as millions of nonbelievers have proven you do not need god to observe and enjoy nature, live a productive, moral, and useful life.
There's no practical difference between believing and not believe in any gods, there's no practical difference between the existence and non-existence of any gods.
So why do you believe when it makes no difference and there is no need?

moral by your own standards, what when standards vary...

I guy runs up and stabs you, as by his moral standards you have no right to live because you have two eyes and he only has one...??

So, you actually don't even understand the concept of morals. That stands to reason considering your religion does not explain morals, but instead commands you to behave a certain way and you do so blindly and ignorantly.

lol I understand morals well enough to know the terrorist who blows innocent people up, does so under the belief they have done a good thing, the patriot who will do anything to stop the attack on his country, the scientist who starts experiments for the greater good of humanity that stretch the legal to beyond it's limits...

what I know of morals is that people tend to fill in the blanks themselves, they can justify, theft, even murder....
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 6:52:32 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/10/2016 6:08:22 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 10/10/2016 4:54:22 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/10/2016 4:07:16 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 10/10/2016 3:33:21 PM, missmedic wrote:
I keep seeing arguments for god, "there is proof"...."there is no proof"....."don't need proof just believe"......"you need god to be moral".
Instead of arguing god's existence, I would argue gods necessity, as millions of nonbelievers have proven you do not need god to observe and enjoy nature, live a productive, moral, and useful life.
There's no practical difference between believing and not believe in any gods, there's no practical difference between the existence and non-existence of any gods.
So why do you believe when it makes no difference and there is no need?

moral by your own standards, what when standards vary...

I guy runs up and stabs you, as by his moral standards you have no right to live because you have two eyes and he only has one...??

So, you actually don't even understand the concept of morals. That stands to reason considering your religion does not explain morals, but instead commands you to behave a certain way and you do so blindly and ignorantly.

lol I understand morals well enough to know the terrorist who blows innocent people up, does so under the belief they have done a good thing, the patriot who will do anything to stop the attack on his country, the scientist who starts experiments for the greater good of humanity that stretch the legal to beyond it's limits...

In other words, you understand nothing about morals.

what I know of morals is that people tend to fill in the blanks themselves, they can justify, theft, even murder....

Yes, you have no understand whatsoever.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
graceofgod
Posts: 5,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 6:53:54 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/10/2016 6:52:32 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/10/2016 6:08:22 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 10/10/2016 4:54:22 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/10/2016 4:07:16 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 10/10/2016 3:33:21 PM, missmedic wrote:
I keep seeing arguments for god, "there is proof"...."there is no proof"....."don't need proof just believe"......"you need god to be moral".
Instead of arguing god's existence, I would argue gods necessity, as millions of nonbelievers have proven you do not need god to observe and enjoy nature, live a productive, moral, and useful life.
There's no practical difference between believing and not believe in any gods, there's no practical difference between the existence and non-existence of any gods.
So why do you believe when it makes no difference and there is no need?

moral by your own standards, what when standards vary...

I guy runs up and stabs you, as by his moral standards you have no right to live because you have two eyes and he only has one...??

So, you actually don't even understand the concept of morals. That stands to reason considering your religion does not explain morals, but instead commands you to behave a certain way and you do so blindly and ignorantly.

lol I understand morals well enough to know the terrorist who blows innocent people up, does so under the belief they have done a good thing, the patriot who will do anything to stop the attack on his country, the scientist who starts experiments for the greater good of humanity that stretch the legal to beyond it's limits...

In other words, you understand nothing about morals.

what I know of morals is that people tend to fill in the blanks themselves, they can justify, theft, even murder....

Yes, you have no understand whatsoever.

well that still puts me way in front of you...lol
WizardOfSnakes
Posts: 73
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 6:55:18 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/10/2016 3:33:21 PM, missmedic wrote:
I keep seeing arguments for god, "there is proof"...."there is no proof"....."don't need proof just believe"......"you need god to be moral".
Instead of arguing god's existence, I would argue gods necessity, as millions of nonbelievers have proven you do not need god to observe and enjoy nature, live a productive, moral, and useful life.
There's no practical difference between believing and not believe in any gods, there's no practical difference between the existence and non-existence of any gods.
So why do you believe when it makes no difference and there is no need?

That's why atheists try to outshout everyone and get violent and loot the streets.
illegalcombat
Posts: 632
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 6:16:21 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/10/2016 3:33:21 PM, missmedic wrote:
I keep seeing arguments for god, "there is proof"...."there is no proof"....."don't need proof just believe"......"you need god to be moral".
Instead of arguing god's existence, I would argue gods necessity, as millions of nonbelievers have proven you do not need god to observe and enjoy nature, live a productive, moral, and useful life.
There's no practical difference between believing and not believe in any gods, there's no practical difference between the existence and non-existence of any gods.

For some there is. If you believe in a God who will punish you for x, reward you for y.

But then again, that is the whole functional purpose of heaven/hell, now let us all believe what our fellow human beings dressed up in funny dresses and hats have to say, I mean what could possibly go wrong ?

So why do you believe when it makes no difference and there is no need?
missmedic
Posts: 390
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 2:27:59 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/10/2016 4:41:13 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 4:35:14 PM, missmedic wrote:
At 10/10/2016 4:17:22 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 3:33:21 PM, missmedic wrote:
I keep seeing arguments for god, "there is proof"...."there is no proof"....."don't need proof just believe"......"you need god to be moral".
Instead of arguing god's existence, I would argue gods necessity, as millions of nonbelievers have proven you do not need god to observe and enjoy nature, live a productive, moral, and useful life.

too general description... how u gonna "enjoy nature, live a productive/moral/useful? according to who? for example some statistics suggest that "2% of ppl r psychopaths,so out of 7 billion ppl on earth u have "140 million psychopaths. im sure they have productive life also in other ways. not mentioning that 15% almost "psychopaths". every one has his own thinking thats where he gets his "morals" from. subjective.

There's no practical difference between believing and not believe in any gods, there's no practical difference between the existence and non-existence of any gods.

thats false. a religious person for instance have to pay charity or be good to others/help the weak. thats a moral to do regardless of what that particular person believes or thinks of it.

So why do you believe when it makes no difference and there is no need?

its necessary for "morals" to be real that its not influenced by subjectivity, and comes from transcendent source.

Faith based belief is subjective, morality based on said belief is subjective.
There is only one thing we share objectively and it is not a god or gods, it is reality.
We may all preserve reality differently but it does not make reality less real.
For morality to be objective it must be based in the reality we all share.
Millions of nonbelievers have proven time and again that we can be good without gods.

ok u say it has been proven again and again that we can be "good" without God. what do u mean by "good"? according to who? u? society?

Good can be and must be defined by the individual, as morality is a choice made by the individual.
How does a person decide which of gods commandments to follow and which ones to ignore, they must use their own individual moral choice.
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 4:13:49 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/10/2016 6:08:22 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 10/10/2016 4:54:22 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/10/2016 4:07:16 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 10/10/2016 3:33:21 PM, missmedic wrote:
I keep seeing arguments for god, "there is proof"...."there is no proof"....."don't need proof just believe"......"you need god to be moral".
Instead of arguing god's existence, I would argue gods necessity, as millions of nonbelievers have proven you do not need god to observe and enjoy nature, live a productive, moral, and useful life.
There's no practical difference between believing and not believe in any gods, there's no practical difference between the existence and non-existence of any gods.
So why do you believe when it makes no difference and there is no need?

moral by your own standards, what when standards vary...

I guy runs up and stabs you, as by his moral standards you have no right to live because you have two eyes and he only has one...??

So, you actually don't even understand the concept of morals. That stands to reason considering your religion does not explain morals, but instead commands you to behave a certain way and you do so blindly and ignorantly.

lol I understand morals well enough to know the terrorist who blows innocent people up, does so under the belief they have done a good thing, the patriot who will do anything to stop the attack on his country, the scientist who starts experiments for the greater good of humanity that stretch the legal to beyond it's limits...

what I know of morals is that people tend to fill in the blanks themselves, they can justify, theft, even murder....

Most of the terrorists who blow people up believe they are doing god's work
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 4:15:53 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/10/2016 6:55:18 PM, WizardOfSnakes wrote:
At 10/10/2016 3:33:21 PM, missmedic wrote:
I keep seeing arguments for god, "there is proof"...."there is no proof"....."don't need proof just believe"......"you need god to be moral".
Instead of arguing god's existence, I would argue gods necessity, as millions of nonbelievers have proven you do not need god to observe and enjoy nature, live a productive, moral, and useful life.
There's no practical difference between believing and not believe in any gods, there's no practical difference between the existence and non-existence of any gods.
So why do you believe when it makes no difference and there is no need?

That's why atheists try to outshout everyone and get violent and loot the streets.

Why do YOU try to outshout everyone, craptor?
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,490
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 4:50:29 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/11/2016 2:27:59 PM, missmedic wrote:
At 10/10/2016 4:41:13 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 4:35:14 PM, missmedic wrote:
At 10/10/2016 4:17:22 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 3:33:21 PM, missmedic wrote:
I keep seeing arguments for god, "there is proof"...."there is no proof"....."don't need proof just believe"......"you need god to be moral".
Instead of arguing god's existence, I would argue gods necessity, as millions of nonbelievers have proven you do not need god to observe and enjoy nature, live a productive, moral, and useful life.

too general description... how u gonna "enjoy nature, live a productive/moral/useful? according to who? for example some statistics suggest that "2% of ppl r psychopaths,so out of 7 billion ppl on earth u have "140 million psychopaths. im sure they have productive life also in other ways. not mentioning that 15% almost "psychopaths". every one has his own thinking thats where he gets his "morals" from. subjective.

There's no practical difference between believing and not believe in any gods, there's no practical difference between the existence and non-existence of any gods.

thats false. a religious person for instance have to pay charity or be good to others/help the weak. thats a moral to do regardless of what that particular person believes or thinks of it.

So why do you believe when it makes no difference and there is no need?

its necessary for "morals" to be real that its not influenced by subjectivity, and comes from transcendent source.

Faith based belief is subjective, morality based on said belief is subjective.
There is only one thing we share objectively and it is not a god or gods, it is reality.
We may all preserve reality differently but it does not make reality less real.
For morality to be objective it must be based in the reality we all share.
Millions of nonbelievers have proven time and again that we can be good without gods.

ok u say it has been proven again and again that we can be "good" without God. what do u mean by "good"? according to who? u? society?

Good can be and must be defined by the individual, as morality is a choice made by the individual.

right now that u admited its subjective, your statemesnt is wrong - ("millions of nonbelievers have proven you do not need god to observe and enjoy nature, live a productive, moral, and useful life.")

How does a person decide which of gods commandments to follow and which ones to ignore, they must use their own individual moral choice.

u have to follow what God says. there is no taking and leaving some commandments. u take it all. now if u what to know what "God" is true among of plenty claims (allah/jesus/yahwa...) thats another debate.
Never fart near dog
imperialchimp
Posts: 252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 6:31:02 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/10/2016 3:47:41 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 3:33:21 PM, missmedic wrote:
I keep seeing arguments for god, "there is proof"...."there is no proof"....."don't need proof just believe"......"you need god to be moral".
Instead of arguing god's existence, I would argue gods necessity, as millions of nonbelievers have proven you do not need god to observe and enjoy nature, live a productive, moral, and useful life.
There's no practical difference between believing and not believe in any gods, there's no practical difference between the existence and non-existence of any gods.
So why do you believe when it makes no difference and there is no need?

How else are priests suppose to lure in little boys if their parents don't believe and attend church?

free food
Ape Lives Matter (ALM)

What if I were to tell you that humans have false logic? Prepare for confusion.

-.-- --- ..- / ... .... --- ..- .-.. -.. / .... .- ...- . / -. --- - / - .-. .- -. ... .-.. .- - . -.. / - .... .. ... .-.-.- .-.-.- .-.-.-

Don't waste your time trying to find truth...you pleb!
janesix
Posts: 3,491
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 6:48:33 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/10/2016 3:33:21 PM, missmedic wrote:
I keep seeing arguments for god, "there is proof"...."there is no proof"....."don't need proof just believe"......"you need god to be moral".
Instead of arguing god's existence, I would argue gods necessity, as millions of nonbelievers have proven you do not need god to observe and enjoy nature, live a productive, moral, and useful life.
There's no practical difference between believing and not believe in any gods, there's no practical difference between the existence and non-existence of any gods.
So why do you believe when it makes no difference and there is no need?

I believe because of personal experience, plus the evidence of an intelligent creator, especially the evidence that the solar system is designed.
missmedic
Posts: 390
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2016 1:54:03 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/11/2016 4:50:29 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 10/11/2016 2:27:59 PM, missmedic wrote:
At 10/10/2016 4:41:13 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 4:35:14 PM, missmedic wrote:
At 10/10/2016 4:17:22 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 3:33:21 PM, missmedic wrote:
I keep seeing arguments for god, "there is proof"...."there is no proof"....."don't need proof just believe"......"you need god to be moral".
Instead of arguing god's existence, I would argue gods necessity, as millions of nonbelievers have proven you do not need god to observe and enjoy nature, live a productive, moral, and useful life.

too general description... how u gonna "enjoy nature, live a productive/moral/useful? according to who? for example some statistics suggest that "2% of ppl r psychopaths,so out of 7 billion ppl on earth u have "140 million psychopaths. im sure they have productive life also in other ways. not mentioning that 15% almost "psychopaths". every one has his own thinking thats where he gets his "morals" from. subjective.

There's no practical difference between believing and not believe in any gods, there's no practical difference between the existence and non-existence of any gods.

thats false. a religious person for instance have to pay charity or be good to others/help the weak. thats a moral to do regardless of what that particular person believes or thinks of it.

So why do you believe when it makes no difference and there is no need?

its necessary for "morals" to be real that its not influenced by subjectivity, and comes from transcendent source.

Faith based belief is subjective, morality based on said belief is subjective.
There is only one thing we share objectively and it is not a god or gods, it is reality.
We may all preserve reality differently but it does not make reality less real.
For morality to be objective it must be based in the reality we all share.
Millions of nonbelievers have proven time and again that we can be good without gods.

ok u say it has been proven again and again that we can be "good" without God. what do u mean by "good"? according to who? u? society?

Good can be and must be defined by the individual, as morality is a choice made by the individual.

right now that u admited its subjective, your statemesnt is wrong - ("millions of nonbelievers have proven you do not need god to observe and enjoy nature, live a productive, moral, and useful life.")

An objective morality, is based on the facts of reality. All one needs in order to be objective is to refer to some facts of reality as source of moral judgments.

How does a person decide which of gods commandments to follow and which ones to ignore, they must use their own individual moral choice.

u have to follow what God says. there is no taking and leaving some commandments. u take it all. now if u what to know what "God" is true among of plenty claims (allah/jesus/yahwa...) thats another debate.
The fact that "god" is held by belief that is as different as the different people that hold that belief, makes "god" subjective.
So aside from the fear of eternal punishment, we don't know why we should do what God tells us to do, other than the fact that he told us to.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2016 2:02:51 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/10/2016 3:58:53 PM, missmedic wrote:
At 10/10/2016 3:50:12 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/10/2016 3:33:21 PM, missmedic wrote:
I keep seeing arguments for god, "there is proof"...."there is no proof"....."don't need proof just believe"......"you need god to be moral".
Instead of arguing god's existence, I would argue gods necessity, as millions of nonbelievers have proven you do not need god to observe and enjoy nature, live a productive, moral, and useful life.
There's no practical difference between believing and not believe in any gods, there's no practical difference between the existence and non-existence of any gods.
So why do you believe when it makes no difference and there is no need?

..or at the very least, why do you condemn those who function very well without belief?

I think it is because they don't believe it is possible for non believers to make their way through the world as well as believers.

When I was a believer, I assumed non believers were fundamentally different than myself. I now know that is simply not the case.

Believers also skip over the one glaring contradiction about their creator god.
Why does a perfect being need to create?
Why does a perfect being need to create creations that do not need the creator?

Kind of like the creation of this thread in the one glaring omission... why create it in the first place?
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2016 2:09:32 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/10/2016 4:07:16 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 10/10/2016 3:33:21 PM, missmedic wrote:
I keep seeing arguments for god, "there is proof"...."there is no proof"....."don't need proof just believe"......"you need god to be moral".
Instead of arguing god's existence, I would argue gods necessity, as millions of nonbelievers have proven you do not need god to observe and enjoy nature, live a productive, moral, and useful life.
There's no practical difference between believing and not believe in any gods, there's no practical difference between the existence and non-existence of any gods.
So why do you believe when it makes no difference and there is no need?

moral by your own standards, what when standards vary...

I guy runs up and stabs you, as by his moral standards you have no right to live because you have two eyes and he only has one...??

You're making the assumption that objective morality exists.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2016 2:10:58 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/10/2016 4:28:42 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 10/10/2016 4:18:49 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/10/2016 3:58:53 PM, missmedic wrote:
At 10/10/2016 3:50:12 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/10/2016 3:33:21 PM, missmedic wrote:
I keep seeing arguments for god, "there is proof"...."there is no proof"....."don't need proof just believe"......"you need god to be moral".
Instead of arguing god's existence, I would argue gods necessity, as millions of nonbelievers have proven you do not need god to observe and enjoy nature, live a productive, moral, and useful life.
There's no practical difference between believing and not believe in any gods, there's no practical difference between the existence and non-existence of any gods.
So why do you believe when it makes no difference and there is no need?

..or at the very least, why do you condemn those who function very well without belief?

I think it is because they don't believe it is possible for non believers to make their way through the world as well as believers.

When I was a believer, I assumed non believers were fundamentally different than myself. I now know that is simply not the case.

Believers also skip over the one glaring contradiction about their creator god.
Why does a perfect being need to create?
Why does a perfect being need to create creations that do not need the creator?

Imo, belief in god is a coping mechanism. "I don't know/I'm scared" = "God". It works well for some, so long as they are content with a meaningless answer. If they are, then pointing out flaws in this magical explanation is pointless. Its like trying to treat a symptom rather than the disease.

you are of course entitled to your opinion but you are quite wrong...

No, you are ;)
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2016 2:17:02 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/10/2016 4:34:05 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
False.

"Humanity is inherently a means towards an end" has implications for purpose, value, ideals, morality, etc.

"Humanity is inherently not a means towards an end" has implications for purpose, value, ideals, morality, etc.

If atheism is true, humanity, necessarily, is inherently not a means towards an end.

I don't know if objective morality exists (nor can you) or if there is any objective purpose yet I still try to treat others well. People don't need a purpose to want to be "good".

Humans, along with the rest of the apes, are hardwired to want to be "good". Chimpanzees don't show altruistic behavior to each other because a god told them to.