Disproving the Existence of God

[six45ive]

That's rather a cop out - perhaps this "evidence" is not as strong as you claim?

 

Not at all, in fact quite the opposite. What do you expect me to do, spend hours of my time finding hundreds of links to research papers by major academic bodies across the world, all experts in their various fields from years of research to then have you ignore the information because it challenges everything you believe?

The information is out there if you wish to access it.

 

Not at all - it simply means that christians are not as closed minded and absolutist as you like to believe and understand that any document that is compiled, translated and edited over a couple of thousand years will reflect the society and culture through which it travels. That doesn't mean that god is either an anachronism or irrelevent. You may - quite accurately - claim that some elements of religion are anachronistic cultural hand-me-downs that are not relevent today but that isn't the same as saying that god is not relevent today.

 

So where are you getting your morals from if it's not the bible? How does god speak to you and how do you know it's a god.

 

That rather depends on whether you believe in an interventionist god or not - and what you believe may or may not be an accurate representation of his/her/its traits. That being the case what do you look for?

 

The god of the bible/tora/koran, the theistic god, is an interventionist god is it not? If you worship a god that doesn't intervene then what's the point?

[evildrneil]

Not at all, in fact quite the opposite. What do you expect me to do, spend hours of my time finding hundreds of links to research papers by major academic bodies across the world, all experts in their various fields from years of research to then have you ignore the information because it challenges everything you believe?

The information is out there if you wish to access it.

 

Firstly your making rather huge assumptions about what I believe and secondly unless you can backup you claims of evidence then it has no more validity than "believe this cos I say so".

 

So where are you getting your morals from if it's not the bible? How does god speak to you and how do you know it's a god.

 

I get my morals from lots of places thankyou and though I've read the bible and was raised a Roman Catholic I'm in no way a practicing - or even believing - Christian. However even believing that the bible is alagorical doesn't prevent someone from taking moral themes from it or from believing in god.

 

The god of the bible/tora/koran, the theistic god, is an interventionist god is it not? If you worship a god that doesn't intervene then what's the point?

 

The god of the bible/tora/koran may be interventionist but that is by no means the only god that is worshiped out there many of them non interventionist in nature.

[Grahame]

But that school is specifically for disruptive children. MOST schools are not, so it surely follows that MOST children are not the kind you work with. Therefore your argument that mankind is inherently evil is completely false. If only one in five has committed a crime then the large majority of children have not.

 

Can you not see how this is completely contradictory to your claims? seriously?

 

I could find more figures but I can't be bothered. If you think that one in five children who admit to committing a crime proves that humankind is inherently good then I would hate to have you testing drugs for safety if you think harming only twenty percent of the population is acceptable.

 

You are arguing that if only 1% of the population were taking them, then you would be saying only 20% of 1% of the population would be harmed, and you would be saying that was acceptable.

 

Give me strength. I'm sorry, but I cannot agree with you.

[kebab69man]

Are we bothered. Let us athiests believe in nothing, and let the religious get on with it. As long as no one wants a holly war or wants to convert none believers. Let and let live.

[flamingjimmy]

Are we bothered. Let us athiests believe in nothing, and let the religious get on with it. As long as no one wants a holly war or wants to convert none believers. Let and let live.

 

What exactly is wrong with tying to convert non-believers?

[kebab69man]

What exactly is wrong with tying to convert non-believers?

 

Its a bit like a door to door sales man. You don't let them in.

If someone wants to take up religion, let it be their choice.

Too many religions have a history of using force or taking advantage of the vulnerable to increase their congrigations.

 

the worst is indoctronation from a young age.

 

People should find religion themselves after making an informed decision.

[flamingjimmy]

Its a bit like a door to door sales man. You don't let them in.

If someone wants to take up religion, let it be their choice.

Too many religions have a history of using force or taking advantage of the vulnerable to increase their congrigations.

 

the worst is indoctronation from a young age.

 

People should find religion themselves after making an informed decision.

 

There are bad examples of churches targeting vulnerable people and of children being indoctrinated, but those are specifics. I don't think there's anything wrong at all with people trying to convince other people of their point of view, be it religious, political, or whatever.

[milquetoast1]

Are we bothered. Let us athiests believe in nothing, and let the religious get on with it. As long as no one wants a holly war or wants to convert none believers. Let and let live.

 

I can't believe than anyone wants a holly war.

 

Too prickly.

 

[Smithster]

I could find more figures but I can't be bothered. If you think that one in five children who admit to committing a crime proves that humankind is inherently good then I would hate to have you testing drugs for safety if you think harming only twenty percent of the population is acceptable.

 

You are arguing that if only 1% of the population were taking them, then you would be saying only 20% of 1% of the population would be harmed, and you would be saying that was acceptable.

 

Give me strength. I'm sorry, but I cannot agree with you.

 

Grahame, the two scenarios are not comparable at all and you know it. You assert that mankind is inherently evil. If that were the case, then surely the large majority of people would be committing evil or criminal acts regularly, yes? Only they're not are they. The vast majority of people on this planet are peaceful people who just get on with their lives, providing food and shelter for themselves and their families. Therefore, your assertion is wrong.

 

Also, with regard to the one in five children referred to in your link, what 'crimes' exactly are they guilty of? Are we talking about murder, rape or armed robbery? No, of course not. I bet that most of the kids who admitted to committing a crime probably did no more than steal a chocolate bar from a sweet shop. Does that make them inherently evil? I once stole some sweets from the shop near my school because I was very easily influenced and din't want to be the odd one out amongst the cool kids at school. I'm not proud of it and would never consider such a thing again. does that make me inherently evil?

 

Of those 20% you referred to, how many do you think will grow out of whatever it was they did, realise the error of their ways and go on to leave a wholesome, peaceful life, and how many of them do you think will grow up to choose a life of crime?

[sccsux]

How does one in five criminal children mean that mankind is inherently good?

 

1/5 = bad

4/5 = not bad.

 

Majority (a large one) are inherently good.

 

Or is your maths as bad as your understanding of science?

 

I actually don't believe you Grahame

 

Neither do I. No right thinking school would let someone with such obscene views and lack of understanding of/compassion for others as Grahame holds near any shool children, let alone one with SN:loopy:.