Im smarter than all of you because I know nothing
This is why I'm agnostic.
I like your logic.
Im a proud episcopalian and im proud to say people created god. Christianity isn't a completely real story. Do you really believe Moses lived that long? Really? Religion is just a way of looking at life if you ask me.
The ages are medaphores.......... When the bible was first written they believd that the better a person you were the longer you lived
I'm on your side I'm just pointing out it's metaphors to make a stronger argument.
Yes, just like santa, religion keeps the "little kiddies" in place and stops them from "stealing cookies out of the cookie jar" (;
(<3): Haha, I like this theory.
In primitive times people created God to explain the unexplainable and now that we are more educated and logical God is redundant.
Although we obviously disagree about the "no God" part, it is true that it enforces social control
@garageblues I don't agree that God really exists, but don't go around saying certain things are for sure. I don't really think of everything is absolute. I believe there are exceptions to things. @dormy I don't think it's not arrogant; However, I think it's arrogant of people to think that just because they can create some invisible guy in the sky, they get a free pass to paradise-island when they die. I feel it's arrogant of people who are christians, and I'm not saying this is you, to think they're religion is right. It's a belief, it's almost like those questions your teachers say there is 'no right or wrong' answer for.
If Christians didn't think they were right they wouldn't be Christian, they would be some other religion or atheist.
a christian who didnt believe in christianity but still in god could be a agnostic christian, deist, or simply a theist they are not limited to other "religons" an atheism
I like your name. :)
Well, I believe I have to work hard to get that "free pass to heaven". I'm kind of insulted that you worded it that way,because that free pass isnt very free.
I agree with this person that we created God. If humans did not exist, God would not exist.
But if you take a look of this theory from the outside, God was created as a way to explain the unexplainable. Back when Christianity was created, science was not as advance as it is today. People were not aware of how the grass was green, the sky was blue or how they came here. They used a single deity, God, to be the creator of life and the preventer of Death.
I myself, am Agnostic and I'm skeptical of God's existence. If God does exist, so be it. Religion is confusing and whether you believe in him or not, you are entitled to that.
I... have nothing to say. XD You said exactly what I wanted to say...
(Luna Avril): Thank you.
I couldn't agree with you more. Humans created god.
noooooo we founded god
this is so true.
no. but that doesnt mean a man cant make a damn sandwich for himself haha
What is wrong with believing in God? If it makes people better people then I don't see a problem with it.
it's fine to have faith, but when people start to become irrational, that's when religion becomes dangerous.
Oh man, I really don't like Bible thumpers. They stand on Main Street and preach to people totally turning them off. Then when you say you ARE a believer they test you and tell you you're believing the wrong things.
things just to prove a point ? I thought God was perfect ? Well, right then and there, he just sounded like a human ? And yet, I also can't truly believe in science either. Because not everything in life is fully explained by science. In fact, a lot of things explained in science are in face just theroies. So, there is no possible way that anyone can convince me of either. I am no longer a Christian, but I am not an atheist because God could exist, or he couldn't.
One of the basics of philosophical arguments is that you don't have to prove a negative.
And for all you people quoting the bible and all those religious texts supposedly created in the time of jesus, another rule of philosophy is that you can't use something to prove itself. Excerpts from religous texts do not prove anything
God the human-looking one is man-made; God meant as "pure energy" is real
Religion has done little more for society than spread hate and violence, all over an imaginary friend who lives in the sky.
Why would humans create a God for social control when there are many other more effective methods of control? Why would humans create God to satisfy people if religious conflicts are some of the worst?
the one explanation that could work is that people created God to explain things, but it could just as easily be that God explained things to people, which made people believe in God. And if God was just created to explain the unexplainable, why doesn't God explain everything unexplainable, (like HOW eternity can exist for ever future and past, WHY we have free will, etc.)?
No; God was not created by man, it just wouldn't make sense.
What are some of these other methods of control?
The different forms of religion appeared in different places accross the globe. Others broke off from their origional religions because they were not content. Kings of the past are known for changing their religious outlooks in multiple occasions just to form amiable relations with other threatening powers.
If God explained things to people, why do we all have different answers?
Who created God, if not the human?
Fear, money, promises for the future, ignorance.
Historically speaking, every civilization has had some form of religion which it followed. Every one. Yes, kings manipulated the 'words of the gods' for their own benefit, only because they were already there to be manipulated. Why not just claim to be the highest authority themselves and bypass the gods? Kings manipulate what existed before they did to gain power which they lose.
Do we all have different answers? there are major categories in which all of us fit. There are finite answers to many questions with infinite possibilities. This shows greater possibility of there being a right explanation to things and many false/twisted answers (say, that a king made up/twisted for his momentary gain).
God was not created; He is eternal. No beginning and no end. Just because we cannot comprehend something having no beginning does not mean that a "higher power" would not be able to exist in such a state.
If we can't comprehend a God, then who wrote the Bible? Just asking.
There are many different people who wrote the bible, ranging from Moses (who wrote the first 5) to the apostles (who wrote the New Testament). Everyone who wrote part of the Bible had some kind of experience with God & wrote about what they saw/heard themselves. The Bible tells us what we can understand about God, and doesn't try to explain what we can't. For example, it tells us that God is a loving God, but doesn't say what God did before he created earth.
I don't know. I feel like god, supposedly having made human beings, should know how to communicate with us what we "can't comprehend," or he could've made his supreme beings a little bit smarter??
No. It's all convenient little things to cover up holes in the religion. We don't have explanations for what people can't comprehend because people made it up.
First off, humans aren't supreme beings; we're just made in the likeness of God.
"We don't have explanations for what people can't comprehend because people made it up." But isn't that the definition of incomprehensible? Can't weird things be natural too (ex. platypus)? Miracles and the existence of God are only incomprehensible if you dismiss them as irrational before trying to understand them.
Could it be that there are no holes in religion and what you see as covering-up is actually the way it is?
@(Apollo): You put up a brilliant argument for Christianity, you're the only one I've EVER seen that made so much sense! I just wanted to tell you that. :) I'm an Atheist, by the way, and don't plan on converting, but you came up with brilliant, logical arguments. :)
What does a "loving" God mean? Does God love me?
Yes! God loves every human on this earth enough to die a cruel, undeserved death for all of us, so that we might have eternal life. God cares for our every need, and paid the price of sin for everyone (he died because the punishment for sin is death, but Jesus himself never sinned), so that now we all have the opportunity to be saved. All we have to do is "confess with our mouth that Jesus is LORD and believe in our hearts that God raised him from the dead, and we will be saved." Romans 10:9
Dying for everyone while everyone was still a sinner shows an infinite amount of love from God, and shows that he would have to love everyone the same to come do something like that.
So if my dad has molested me, God loves him and I should love him? Why?
Because love changes people; if you run away from the problem, you may end up a child molester yourself (it's been proven that people who are hurt in certain ways hurt others in the same way), but if you forgive your dad, and show him a perfect love (patient, kind, keeps no record of wrongs, always protects, trusts, hopes, perseveres ~1 corinthians 13) you would witness to him through your actions and he would see that. He would notice your actions and behavior and might change himself because of you. It wouldn't change what had happened, but forgiving him would free you, and your loving him would free him from his sin (sin is like a prison; impossible to escape without the key, which would be Jesus in this case).
The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace. Romans 8:6
So I should just let him fuck me whenever he wants?
He's wrong in what he's doing, and needs to stop. No question about that. But his heart won't change if you lock him up in some prison for a few years. Something needs to change his heart, and pure love has the power to do that. He'll suffer for the consequences of his own actions in Hell if he doesn't change, but do you want him to keep acting like that and go to Hell, or stop & repent (completely change his ways) and go to Heaven? This life is temporary. Eternity is much longer, and God will give you justice. Jesus suffered and died the most painful death imaginable when he had the choice to do so or not. He could have called angels to save him from his death upon the cross, but didn't so that he could show the world his love. He suffered, and changed the lives of everyone alive. There are martyrs who died horrible deaths (torture, burning, and more) to show those around them the Love of God.
If you're not Christian, get out of there now. If you are, love him.
If you're a christian, love your father with the love of God, because love covers over a multitude of sins (1 peter 4:8), because Love keeps no record of wrongs (1 Corinthians 13:5), because God first loved us (1 John 4:19), because love never fails (1 corinthians 13:8).
We share in Christ's suffering so that we may share in his glory. (romans 8:17)
God is "...the God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our troubles, ... For just as the sufferings of Christ flow over into our lives, so also through Christ our comfort overflows." (2 corinthians 1:3-5)
You're missing the child molestation and rape point. It would not matter whether I or my dad was Christian or not (as a matter of fact, HE is). The point is that Christianity does not stop him from doing what he does. And if God were to truly love me, then he would not allow me to be molested. Where is the God in that? Where is the Love? Where is this just and loving God? WHERE?
He is not Christian if he is still bound to sin like that (we can only have one master; God or sin). He may go to church, but his heart belongs to Satan. If you don't believe in God, you need to keep yourself from being hurt, because that's all you can do. If you do believe in God, then you have to Love the sinner and hate the sin because God loved us while we were still sinners.
God is right beside you, ready to comfort you if you go to Him. Remember that God is your true Father, the man who abuses you is just your dad. God is ready and waiting to comfort you through the hardest times in your life. God allowed Jesus - His own son - to die. God never promises that we won't have to go through problems, just that He will be there for us when we do.
God helped me through a time that I thought I might not live through, so you can believe me when I say that God's love does not depend upon what others do/have done to us. Talk to God like the Father He is-pray to Him.
So if we only have one master, doesn't everyone have sin as their master. Because we are all sinners. There is no redemption. We are all sinners at the hands of an angry God - Jonathon Edwards. There is no saving. So what's the point? If God cannot save anyone. If everyone is a sinner, then God does not love anyone.
Everyone sins, but not everyone is a slave to sin. Paul, (who wrote much of he New Testament) claimed that he was the worst of all sinners, yet he also stated "Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ," which shows that even though he has sinned he does not pursue his sin, but rather pursues Christ.
Jonathan Edwards' famous sermon was meant to awaken people to the power of God; not to say we're all doomed to hell.
There is no saving? What gives you that idea? God only had to save everyone because everyone is a sinner. Otherwise, why would we need salvation? Jesus' death upon the cross was God Himself taking the punishment for all sins - death - though He Himself had not sinned. "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8). "This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins" (1John 1:10). "God is love" (1John 4:16)
i've lost the trail of the argument. Would you like to start a new one? Religious debates are really motivating and inspiring and all! So how about patriarchy? Do you support it?
Patriarchy meaning the rule of the household by the father? Yes, but it's a complicated matter; best described in Ephesians 5:21-33. Wives are told to submit to their husbands 'as the church submits to Christ,' while at the same time husbands are told to love their wives 'as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her...' implying that the husband should always act toward the wife with a pure love (as described in 1 corinthians 13).
As for parent-child relations, again I will go to Ephesians (chapter 6 this time). "Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 'Honor your father and mother'—which is the first commandment with a promise— 'that it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life on the earth.' Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord." (verses 1-4)
The children thing is irrelevant. What strikes me most is that you support male dominance which is utterly and purely sexist. How dare the Bible or anyone for that matter belittle women?
Belittle women? The wives may be told to submit to the husband, but the husband is told to love his wife "as Christ loves the church." Now, as you know, Christ's entire life was submission; submitting to his Father's (the LORD's) will, submitting to a life of servanthood to all, and submitting to death on a cross. Just because the word 'submit' is used towards the wife does not mean that she should be the only one submitting. Does this still sound sexist to you?
So women submit and Jesus submits? While every other man can do as he wants. That still sounds sexist
No, because every man must love their wife "as Christ loved" and part of Christ's love was his submission, so every man must submit to their wife. It would end up being a mutual thing; both the man and the woman serving and submitting to the other.
Why must we submit? Why can't we be free? If God loved me, then I wouldn't have to submit to anyone
What do you mean by that?
Submitting is demeaning. It's the lack of freedom. Love is freedom. Submission does not allow for love.
If you misinterpret what is meant by submit and what is meant by love, then yes. Unwilling submission is demeaning, this is true, but what if we were to submit to one another out of love? What if a man's love for his wife makes him WANT to meet her every request, and so he therefore submits to her every request willingly. And what if the wife's love for her husband makes her do the same? The submission and the love are not separate, but rather the submission is a child of the love. It is only through the love that the submission happens, and it is through submission that they show their love for one another. Does this still sound demeaning to you?
Submitting in general is demeaning.
Submit: yield to the control of another. That's demeaning.
But what if you loved someone and wanted to show them that you cared about them more than anything else in the world; wouldn't you do whatever they asked because you love them? It's a way of showing affection, not some way of demeaning a person.
And besides that, is submission demeaning? It simply means doing what someone else asks - doing what they want instead of what you want. If both a husband and a wife refused to do what the other wanted and always had to have their own way, wouldn't neither side end up with what they want? So; by doing what the other wants every now and then—submitting—both sides can get what they want AND make the other happy.
Having control over someone, no matter whether it's out of love or spite, is demeaning. If a woman loves a man so much that whenever he tells her to do anything, she submits, that is not love, that is demeaning. If he were to tell her to jump off a bridge because that is what he wants and she does it. That is not love. Submission is not love.
I'm going to stop repeating myself now and start quoting the scripture which I referenced at the beginning of this little debate more often.
Ephesians 5:28-33a, "In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church—for we are members of his body. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself..."
So in essence: the husband wouldn't tell the wife to jump off a bridge because he wouldn't jump off a bridge himself.
If he didn't ask the wife to do anything that he wouldn't do by himself, would that still be demeaning?
The love thing may not be demeaning but the Bible is still sexist.
While unmarried women may have more flexibility in applying the principle that women were created for a domestic calling, it is not the ordinary and fitting role of women to work alongside men as their functional equals in public spheres of dominion (industry, commerce, civil government, the military, etc.). The exceptional circumstance (singleness) ought not redefine the ordinary, God-ordained social roles of men and women as created. (Gen. 2:18ff.; Josh. 1:14; Jdg. 4; Acts 16:14)
And sexism is demeaning, be it out of love or whatnot.
Are we talking of marriage or the general position of women in society?
What exactly are you saying in your second ¶? I don't get what you're trying to say.
About female roles in general. I found it on some site that proves that the Bible supports patriarchy and sexism.
And the last verse you referenced is about a particular woman, Lydia, who believed the preaching of Paul, was baptized with her family, and invited Paul and his companions into her house as a gesture of kindness.
Personally, I don't see the sexism in those verses; but I can see how they might appear sexist when taken out of context.
Just a question; do you believe everything you find on the internet? Then why did you believe some site that says the Bible is sexist? And another thought; do you know that I'm telling you the truth about the verses? You could read the verses in context (read the verses before and after them to get a feel for what's being said) and find out for yourself.
I haven't and don't plan on reading the Bible. I just don't know where to get started. Which is the first book and which is the sequel? And, it was just a five second Google and the site looked informational so I believed it. But now I see how those verses are not sexist.
Well, if you look at the first verse you mentioned you will find that when God spoke of finding a 'helper' for Adam he was referring to everything He had already created, "But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs... then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man..." so the search for the helper ended, and Adam ended up with something that was a part of himself; "bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh." (everything in quotes from Gen 2)
The second verse is about the armies of Israel traveling without taking along all of their possessions as they had been for the last few years.
The third verse is about a woman killing an enemy of Israel that their male leader couldn't; I'd say that shows how women can be better than men—not how women are worth less than men.
If God loves everyone, even sinners, then why does Hell exist? If God loves everyone, he wouldn't want anyone to ever end up in Hell. Also, I'm pretty sure the Bible openly discriminates against women and homosexuals. If God loves them, why does the Bible say that homosexuals can't go to heaven, and that women shouldn't talk, have no rights, etc?
(A Person :)): God is perfect, and wants everyone to be in Heaven; but because humans sinned in the Garden of Eden we became imperfect and separated ourselves from God. God did everything that could be done to make it possible for Humans to get into Heaven (first: telling people to make sacrifices for their sins because the penalty for sin is death, then becoming the perfect sacrifice as Jesus so that everyone could be forgiven and get into Heaven).
God does say that homosexuality is wrong, (it also says that idolatry, adultery, male prostitution, thievery, greed, drunkenness, slandering, & swindling are wrong in 1corinthians 6:9-11) but those verses also say that they can get into heaven by being sanctified through Jesus Christ (just like every other kind of sinner). There's no discrimination against them in the sense that they're only as sinful as everyone else.
(A Person :)): "women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says." (1Corinthians 14:34)
"The Law" refers to the Jewish code of laws (the Torah); and then there's the complicated matter of the Law and if we must follow it, which is luckily addressed in the book of Romans. Basically, it says that we are justified in forgiveness, through faith, and it is not strictly necessary to follow the Law (but also that following the Law should come from being justified in faith).
In summary, it's mostly a cultural thing, and is not necessary today (but it cannot hurt to do so).
And finally; where does it say that women have no rights? I couldn't find that one in the Bible.
and the catholics edited it to make Jesus more than a man after he died. He was a normal man. He was a great man, but he wasn't divine in the original versions of the bible
Which part of Jesus' life did they edit? And if it was people editing, how did they know what a perfect/divine person would act like (seeing as they are neither)?
Splitting bread and wine among a hundred people is too good to be true
Do you think that just the miracles (like feeding thousands, healing paralyzed people, bringing someone back to life etc.) were made up or do you think that the things Jesus said were also messed with?
I believe in miracles.
So what's too good to be true about Jesus turning 5 loaves and 2 fish into food for 5000 men plus women and children? I'm trying to figure out which parts you think are edited.
(P.S. Are you continuing the statement of anonymous that the catholics edited Jesus' life or arguing your own point?)
they edited the bible to make jesus seem like he was divine. They wanted to make him a messiah, not just a great mortal man. If you honestly think that he could walk on water and turn 5 loaves and 2 fish into enough food for 5000 people, there is something seriously wrong with you. No matter who it is, no one can do that. It's not physically possible. The catholics wanted to make him seem divine. I think he was a great man and sent an amazing message of loving and caring and helping, but I don't believe that he was the son of god and could walk on water. He was a mortal man
everyone is a mortal man. and everyone can walk on water
The reason why 5,000 people were fed was because of a miracle. There are some extraordinary events on this Earth that just can't be explained.
ah, good ol' apollo, i was wondering how far into this debate you would appear. you're always good for a debate, and i mean that in the most complimentary way possible.
He does't mean that we literally created God. He means we cames up with the idea of God. Which has to be true whether he is real or not, because it's not like we were born knowing God exists. There was one person somewhere who first thought, what if there is a greater power than us? What if there is something past this life? And God was just an idea then. And in the present time, God is still just an idea; we have no proof. Never have. God, so far, is just something thought up by humanity.
Or, there was Adam and Eve...
if adam and eve were single celled organisms that evolved, yes.
It could be possible. My Christian-Evolutionist friend believes Adam and Eve is a completely symbolic and not literal theory.
Do you know everything?
Does anyone really know anything?
Yes. If you believe that you can't know anything, then you know that you know nothing.
Perceptions can be fooled easily. We are required to accept certain truths to be able to prove anything else. We really don't know anything for fact.
We are not 'required' to do anything. What do you think you're doing right now? Dreaming? No dream can excite the senses such as life can.
You're right. But how do you know that you exist physically? Because you see yourself? Eyes are easily fooled. Because you hear your voice? In the same way that schizophrenic people "hear" voices which don't exist? Because you smell yourself? With the same nose that thinks a skunk and weed smell the same? Because you feel yourself with your hands? Hands which think spaghetti feels like a brain? Because you taste yourself? With a tongue which confuses lemons and oranges. Senses aren't reliable.
So let's remove our senses. How do you know that 1+1=2? Because that's what you were told to memorize? That's not knowing. We must accept this as a fact in order to do any higher mathematical calculations, though.
Dreams can be every bit as vivid as real life.
Really? Have you ever smelled in a dream before? Furthermore, i would love to hear you explanation of this current state we are in.
No, but that doesn't necessarily mean that this "real world" is real. And I don't noticeably smell anything most of the time when I'm awake either, unless it's a very strong smell. I don't have an explanation, because there is no way of knowing for sure what this is.
I would love you hear you try to prove anything. Please, pick whatever topic you choose.
If you had no senses, I'm sure you'd survive more than a few minutes. Even if you just lay on the couch with no senses, you'll survive probably until you dehydrate.
If senses weren't reliable then picture this: no hearing, no seeing, no tasting, no feeling, no smelling. You would be dead in a matter of minuets.
Okay, but i still await your answer to my previous question.
I've commented on every point you've brought up, have I not.
But seriously, my challenge wasn't rhetorical. I would love to hear you try to prove anything.
I would like to hear your 'explanation' on this state we are in.
I said in reply to that comment, "I don't have an explanation, because there is no way of knowing for sure what this is."
Of course. If I say anything to offend you, please just ignore it.
BTW. I don't mean anything personal in this argument.
Thank you, my eyes must have skipped over that.
Then why do you fight for its cause?
Because I think that it's ignorant to claim to fully know anything when we are so incredibly limited by our senses and our inability to prove the foundations from which we have built shaky empires of knowledge.
Would it be helpful if I suggested a few claims for you to attempt to prove?
Wow. You have an amazing vocabulary. But once again, you are saying that you can't know anything. That makes you know something; collapsing your whole argument.
Thank you. No, I'm claiming this. I'm not claiming to know it. There is a very fine difference.
How we know the sky is blue, how we know 2+2=4, how we know that the Earth is round.
Before you begin, do you agree that our senses can be tricked?
Yeah, it probably would.
Pardon? Or something. And obviously. Something can only be affected if something is affecting it.
I agree, but not unless someone is tricking them.
Yes, you are right, and there is proof: read.
Most amusing post I've seen all day. The amount of emotions you have triggered is priceless. Nicely done.
Humans created THEIR version of God.
It. Doesn't. Matter.
Well, to be honest with everyone, proving that God is or isn't real really isn't possible. A lot of things in life just can't be explained and automatically assuming a higher power did it or forcing a theory on humanity doesn't really make any sense to me ? When I was younger, I was a strict Christian because of my grandparents and everyday I would pray to God about something. Every time we would read the stories of the Bible, I listened to how the All Mighty God spoke to great men who changed their ways and got everything they wanted just because they obeyed everything that God said. I was fascinated, and yet, confused. Why didn't God ever "talk" to me ? I never hear him. Also, in onwe story, it foretold of a man that lived a happy and wonderful life because he followed AGod throought everything, and the Devil said, I bet he wouldn't follow you if you took everything you gave him away . He only loves you because you gave him all of this. Well, why would God do all of those horrible
I believe that God created us
And that's totally fine. Why are people downvoting you?
fuck that faggot of a god...even a /b/tard could be god and it wouldn't change shit cuz god isn't real
God created us... we found out about god
Your so stupid
I agree with Victoria. I agree that God created us. How may I ask do you think that humans created God? Please, try and explain your logic.
humans created the IDEA that there was a higher being to explain unexplainable things before science. Now we have solved these things that we didn't know before. God didn't create us. We evolved from singular celled creatures.
if God isnt real, could someone explain to me how after a chapel full of students praying over a boy with a condition where one leg wa visibly shorter that the other, that this boy's leg grew...right then and there, in front of everyone! Or can someone explain to me how someone who had never met me or my family came up to my grandmother and was like I feel like God wants me to tell you that your daughter is in heaven...and it was only about 4 weeks after her death and within those 4 weeksshe had prayed endlessly wanting to know the answer to that question. God is real, but you can decide to believe in Him or not..he gives you that choice :)
wow. humans created a god to believe in. ever seen the movie 'the invention of lying"? you should sometimes. some people cling to a false sense of security so they can go about their day with less stress.
Is that not what people do with evolution? I don't even believe in God, but I'm guessing that you're clinging to the belief that there is no God just as much as other cling to the belief in Him. And you have just as much proving that there is no God as others have proving there is. A big fat pile of no proof whatsoever.
haha this made me laughhhh! This is all so fake!
the explanation: it's fake
no no no, i think you worded that wrong. It's God created US, and we did NOT creat Him. :)
No no no, I think YOU worded that wrong. It's US that created GOD, and he did NOT create US.
What proof of God is there? None.
Well, I'm hust here to spread the word. You can belive what you wish :)
You believe that the everyone worshipped a zombie and there is a greater being watching us who lets us kill and maim each other uncontrollably without caring at all
We are the only animals who are aware of our mortality. This, of course, creates anxiety. So, to paraphrase what a famous neurologist said. We needed to create something that was eternal to counteract this anxiety.
So. all these different religions do that. You have Christianity that says believe and you'll be saved. Buddhism that says once you reach enlightenment, you will die and enter Nirvana; no worries though, in the mean time you'll be reincarnated until you get it right. The list goes on.
This, I do believe, is what the OP meant.
Then I'd rather live for a God that's real to ME, than have no reason to live at all.
i'm pretty sure there are other reasons to live. By needing a god and an afterlife, the only reason you have to live is to die. That's kind of pitiful, isn't it?
Everyone dies. Everyone. So once I die, I'd rather live eternally in Heaven, than live eternally in hell.
saying that an atheist will go to hell is as effective as a hippy threatening to punch someone in their aura. it doesn't really make sense
i wasn't talking about after death. I'm talking about life. You're so preocupied with death... LIVE.
Exactly. :) That's so true.
Read the book In 6 Days; it may change your views on this subject. I highly recommend it.
Yeah, you're right... It'll just make me think worse of religion.
Without we are nothing, I think you have it switched the wrong way.
saying you dont believe in a higher power basically says that you are the highest power..if you can "create God"
Religion is the opiate of the masses. OP's just saying that people created God as a form of social control.
exactly what I was going to say.
KARL MARX FTW!
We are the highest power. God has been created in stories like fairytales in the 1800s to warn children and teach them how to behave
Fairy tales in the 1800's? Judaism is thousands of years old.
And quite young I believe.
Well, it is very egotistical to assume that humans are the smartest things out there, which is basically what you are saying
How is that at all what's he's saying?
he's saying its more logical, given human nature, for man to have created this "god" than for him to have already existed out of nothing and create the universe out of nothing. also, going on with my rant, nothing is a bad idea, the concept of nothing truly doesn't exist, therefore, nothing doesn't exist. got off topic, but whatever