Does God Exist thread

Discussion in 'World News & Debates' started by OrNy, Jul 25, 2011.

  1. Ali Radicali

    Ali Radicali Well-Known Member

    What the fuck kind of a response is that.
    It doesn't matter who wrote the accounts more than half a century later, clearly we aren't talking about reliable accounts here.

    Claiming these sources as evidence would be as retarded as claiming that I am an expert on the Korean War or the Kennedy assassination. In present times, we have internet, history books, etc. to look up information on past events. What do you think these early historans used when writing about events prior to their birth? Divine revelation?
    So how accurate is an account written 60 years post date, by someone who wasn't even alive at the time of the event?

    The fact that there are NO contemporary accounts is a damning piece of evidence against your claim, which you can't refute by pointing to your much younger sources.

    Are you unfamiliar with the story? Or are you just utterly blind to the obvious parallels?

    Giving you the benefit of the doubt, the greek pantheon plays an important part in the whole trojan affair:
    The conflict starts when the goddesses hold a beauty contest and paris is made the judge. Athena, Hera and Aphrodite each offer bribes, and paris chooses Aphrodite in return for the love of the woman of his choice. He chooses Helena, the wife of Menelaos, forcing Menelaos to war to uphold his honor. From here, the story is riddled with intervention by various gods (Artemis doesn't allow the fleet to leave Aulis because she has beef with Agamemnon, various gods intercede during the battle, Apollo punishes the Greeks with plague for harming his priests, Poseidon tells his priest Laocoon about the Greeks' plan with the horse, etc. etc.)

    Now of course, you'd be right in concluding that all these deities and supernatural events are probably embellishments. However, in doing so, you're using a different standard of evidence than when you say you DO believe the historicity of the new Testament. The question is why.
    Why is it that a couple of lines by historians decades and centuries later is enough to convince you of god, jesus and miracles, but actual tangible evidence, like the burnt remains of troy, are not sufficient to make you believe in Apollo, Achilles and the rest?
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2012
  2. forthenoodz

    forthenoodz Well-Known Member

    my bad. wrong link.
    if you actually read the link there are older sources.
  3. Hey00

    Hey00 Well-Known Member

    Rael is a self proclaimed messiah and founder of a religion, and he made a shitload of money through his sect.
    First who can say what this jesus's, if he ever existed, motivations? After all, he did get insane fame.
    Second, how do you know jesus was perfect?

    His reasoning was stupid on two levels:
    first he lists 3 options, rules 2 out and conclude that the third must be true. This is scientifically wrong. An option isn't true because the other are false, it is true because it is supported by evidence. There can always be plenty of other unknown options.
    second, the arguments he uses to rule out those two options are bullshit, as I have said earlier.
  4. Hey00

    Hey00 Well-Known Member

    Failed double post. So let's say something useless: Ali, next time use spoiler tags!
  5. Ali Radicali

    Ali Radicali Well-Known Member

    It doesn't matter. Most of these are well into the 2nd century. 2 are purported quotes by older historians, written down later by a christian roman, Julius Africanus (who was a big influence on Eusebius, the guy who is probably responsible for the Josephus hoax.) Makes one wonder about the reliability of these early church historians. It seems to me like they were awfully keen on doctoring evidence in support of their claims by rewriting history.

    I think this becomes abundantly clear when we read the argument africanus makes:
    "Thallus in the third book of his histories, explains away this darkness as an eclipse of the sun- unreasonably, as it seems to me" (unreasonably, of course, because a solar eclipse could not take place at the time of the full moon, and it was the season of the Paschal full moon that Christ died).
    Well, first of all, since we don't have the original manuscript where Thallus reports on the incident (20 years post date, mind), we don't know whether or not it's real. Assuming that there was a darkness though, what seems more reasonable: that the timing of events was not entirely as per gospel (I.E. eclipse half a month later), or that the darkness actually occurred, was supernatural in origin, was not reported by any contemporary writers and was later reported on by a historian, only to be "proven" wrong centuries later based on the supposed timing of events? Give me a break.

    The most reliable source provided is a letter by a syrian pagan to his son, dated somewhere between 73 AD and the 3rd century (!). It doesn't mention any supernatural events, it merely mentions how the Jews executed their "wise king" (name omitted), and how that king lived on in his teachings. It mentions how the jews kill their king and lose their kingdom shortly thereafter, but the jews were already living under roman rule in the time of jesus.

    As evidence goes, this stuff is real flimsy compared to troy. Seriously, go sacrifice a white bull to poseidon, he seems a lot more plausible when reviewing the archaeological and historical evidence.
  6. s.ops_Freak

    s.ops_Freak Well-Known Member

    God is love.

    Why do I believe in God? Because I believe in love.

    Can we see love? Nope.... yet all atheists believe in love.

    Oh because it's something felt, not seen, touched, smelt, tasted or heard. It's only when you understand this can you understand Faith.

    It's not some mushy, corny feelings gained when thinking about Jesus. It's a high regard and respect for something you know to be true even though it's not visible to the naked eye.

    If you don't understand why we believe in God after that then you, sir, have a big void in your life and you need to start inviting Jesus more in your heart.
  7. Mazoku

    Mazoku Well-Known Member

    You are wrong mate.
  8. forthenoodz

    forthenoodz Well-Known Member

    Oh, i thought you meant Jesus's reasoning. My mistake.

    "First who can say what this jesus's, if he ever existed, motivations? After all, he did get insane fame.
    Second, how do you know jesus was perfect?"
    You will never know a person's true intentions unless you are him. There is always a possibility that he might not be who you think he is.
    I believe he is perfect from the bible, which is cross referenced from ancient records etc etc etc. Besides, if he wasn't perfect, don't you think someone would have recorded it down and displayed it to the world?
  9. Pwntlolz

    Pwntlolz Well-Known Member

    I love how your arguments failed and you resort to appealing to us through emotion as some sort of last-ditch effort to convince people since your skills in debate are so weak

    You also sound disturbingly similar to pedophiles I just saw in a movie
  10. Ali Radicali

    Ali Radicali Well-Known Member

    When you say love is god, that makes about as much sense to me as saying hatred is Darth Vader or generosity is Santa Claus. The word love describes a human emotion/state of mind. A brain state. God, as per bible, is some sort of ethereal, intelligent being with superpowers and a plan for humanity. I don't see how you get from "feelings" to "a god exists".

    We can't see love with our naked eyes, but we can experience it, study it, research the hormones and pheromones involved, the neurons that fire up in the brain when someone experiences love, etc. I don't see any evidence for a supernatural cause for love, just like I don't see any supernatural side effects of being in love. So where is your god now?

    The word love is vague enough as it is without us changing the definition. Let's use the word love to describe love, and lets try to be a bit more explicit about what you believe in, hmm?

    Or if you actually do worship the emotion of love, can you explain why you need all the extra baggage of christianity? Why does one have to hate homosexuals or nonbelievers in order to worship love?
  11. s.ops_Freak

    s.ops_Freak Well-Known Member


    Enjoy people!

    To the guy who said he isn't love, "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love," according to 1 John 4:8.

    Our God is lo o o o o o o o ove! Enjoy your nights everyone.
  12. s.ops_Freak

    s.ops_Freak Well-Known Member


    Looked at the top comment and completely smiled :rofl:
  13. Star_Saber

    Star_Saber Banned

    It's logic, just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not.

    If the creator was created then he is not a creator lol.

    lolwat? excuse me, what contradiction? The contradiction is only within yourself. You can't apply your circular logic to God. By definition God is the prime origin of all other beings and things. If you are talking about someone who was also created, then thou dear fine sir art SO NOT talking about God.
  14. Mazoku

    Mazoku Well-Known Member

    No its not, it contradicts itself. Everything had to be created, but the creator didnt need a creator. Also, the creator exists. wtf?

    If you insist i will use the same "logic" you do to prove you wrong:
    -The creator doesnt exist
    -You cant prove this wrong

    See how easy it was?

    How come?

    You are asuming one important thing. Why there had to be an origin of things?
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2012
  15. Lord_Talron

    Lord_Talron Well-Known Member

    still waiting for you to use actual quotes from the bible to prove god's omnipotence.

    to help you get started, god saying hes all powerful doesnt count.

    thats like me saying im an international man of mystery super spy.

    im giving you a break here, im even letting you labor under the assumption that hes real.

    and i stand by my statement: there is no proof that the god of christianity is anywhere near as powerful as he claims to be. he could just as easily be a super-powered troll with just enough ability to convince people that hes more than he says he is.
  16. forthenoodz

    forthenoodz Well-Known Member

    What kind of proof do you want? Him moving planets?
  17. Lord_Talron

    Lord_Talron Well-Known Member

    i believe superman moved the earth with 2-3 other super heroes. green lantern wonderwoman and mb one more. that doesnt sound all powerful does it?

    and my point is, there is no proof. god is not all powerful, even in his made-up book
  18. Pwntlolz

    Pwntlolz Well-Known Member

    lol @ realizing your arguments have long ago fallen apart and resorting to spamming the thread with religious songs

    go here or here
  19. Drickosh

    Drickosh Well-Known Member

    not so a HP quote from Deathly Hallows,
    "It's easier to made up a lie based on real thing"
    I wouldn't go as far as claiming the person name Jesus and his teaching is fake, but the magic and fiction attributed later to his life by Roman Caesar to support his kingdom is just..:no:
  20. Ali Radicali

    Ali Radicali Well-Known Member

    It's not logical, your first cause argument falls flat on its face. Since youre too dumb to actually type out an argument, I'll do you the disservice of doing it for you. The argument goes:

    1 Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
    2 The Universe began to exist.
    3 Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

    This is where the theists stops and inserts his god.

    However, that begs the question, why is your god exempt from premise 1? That's the special pleading fallacy. If you're going to use special pleading, you might as well plead that 1 doesn't apply to the universe, rather than to god. Simple as that. Using Occam's razor, what seems more plausible, that the universe has always existed (in some form), or that an infinitely powerful being outside of time and space exists, and poofs galaxies into being?

    Don't even get me started on the fact that it might not even make sense to talk about "before the big bang", since the singularity from which the bang started presumably had no time. Since causality requires time, talking about a first cause in a time before time seems like pure conjecture.