Any Religion With A Creator God Is Absolutely False - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


Communities

The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Any Religion With A Creator God Is Absolutely False
in Religion

By AraneaAranea 61 Pts
Any religion with a creator god is absolutely false because of this: If god creates the universe, then there is a sequence of prior creation --> creation --> post creation. So, if god is now bound to a sequence, that means there's a higher rule than god and thus god is no longer god.
PlaffelvohfenPolaris95Zombieguy1987AlofRI
«134



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • Perhaps it is more complicated than that. There could be a loop that prevents the chain from going past a certain "level" of god. For example:

    ... -> God of gods of gods -> Gods of gods -> Gods -> Universes -> God of gods of gods -> ...

    God of gods of gods could be the supreme being that, through a peculiar chain of events, constantly creates itself. We are unable to trace the entire process, because we are stuck at the "Universe" stage of the process - but in the end, perhaps, our Universe dies as a result of the "reverse Big Bang", and all Universes dying this way simultaneously result in the "supreme God" being born.

    This may seem bizarre, but it is not uncommon for the world to have such loops. Ignoring the famous "chicken or egg" question, consider the following famous principle:

    1. Bad times create strong people.
    2. Strong people create good times.
    3. Good times create weak people.
    4. Weak people create bad times.

    Of course, in this case it is difficult to separate one of these 4 entities (bad times, good times, weak people, strong people) from the other 3 as special in some regard. Similarly, in the chain mentioned above, there is no reason to assume that God of gods of gods is the supreme god, rather than, say, Universes - which give the birth to the God of gods and, hence, themselves can be considered as gods.

    However, if we assume that there can only be one "real god", then God of gods of gods has to be the one, as all other beings come in multiples.
  • @MayCaesar ;
    But, the problem is still that a creator god(s) would be bound to the rule of loop sequencing, meaning there is still a higher principle than it and thus making it not truly and absolutely supreme.

    The chicken or egg question is easy to solve: First, abiogenesis occurred as life arose from non-living, organic materials. Cells evolved, then multicellular life evolved from that until a pre-chicken species of bird laid an egg which genetically mutated to form the first species of chicken.

    If this god(s) is not truly supreme to all other principles and principles, then it is not absolutely supreme and thus not god.

  • There's no escaping the infinite regress loop, a creator that creates itself doesn't solve the problem, it creates another: How can something create itself, how can you be your own father so to speak, in order for something to create itself, it must exist prior to its own creation, this leads nowhere IMO...  

    That said, I don't think that it's the "creator" aspect per se that makes religions wrong, I think it's the "revelation" part of theism that makes them all wrong... I have less problems with deism than with theism because of this. 
    AlofRIZeusAres42
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • These are fair notions - however, one could argue that on some abstract scale logic works differently, than it does in our general interpretation. It is possible that the world as a whole is a "fractal of fractals", in which gods constantly create other gods, that create other gods, that create other gods, and eventually the creation collapses into one god - that, through bizarre properties of that abstract space, happens to be not just a copy of the original "supreme god", but that very supreme god.

    Incidentally, that "supreme god" could be a quantum-like superposition of gods that results in a coherent being. While all other gods are like wave-functions that, separately from each other, do not really form independent beings.

    As for such a god not being truly supreme to all other principles - it very well might be. However, since it is the same god, this god always makes the same creation choices. In theory, it could make different choices and change the loop - but in practice, it never does, and so the looped structure persists. And due to how the properties of "time" in that space work, the supreme god ends up creating itself at the "zero point" in time, so the time essentially resets every time it happens

    So what we have is: every time the world is reset to the zero point, there is already the creator present, hence the question on "Who created the creator?" is not very relevant: technically, the creator created itself! And yet for every consequitive god, as well as our Universe, we can find the creator. Everything works out.

    Of course, it is a very bizarre structure, and I doubt there are any religions nowadays that postulate such a world view. 

  • @MayCaesar

    -"one could argue that on some abstract scale logic works differently"

    On some abstract scale anything can be argued...  ;) 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @MayCaesar ;On the majority of your point, I think you missed my point. I’m not talking about “who created the creator” I’m stating that if god creates all things, there is then a sequence of events involved in god creating all things [god prior to making all things -> god making all things -> aftermath of god making all things] and that then means there is a rule of sequence god is constrained to now, thus negating god as god since it is not absolutely supreme anymore.

  • I affirm your right to say that, but Jesus loves you.
    Zombieguy1987Plaffelvohfencheesycheese
  • Aranea said:
    Any religion with a creator god is absolutely false because of this: If god creates the universe, then there is a sequence of prior creation --> creation --> post creation. So, if god is now bound to a sequence, that means there's a higher rule than god and thus god is no longer god.

    That's religious logic... And they'll never accept that in order for 

    God -> Universe -> Planets, stars, suns etc. -> life on Earth. Needs a beginning, which is

    ??? -> God -> Universe -> Planets, stars, suns etc. -> life on Earth. Because then they'd need to think for a second and be like "Wait... that doesn't make a lot of sense."

    Then sometimes they'll do this

    Big Bang -> God -> Universe -> Planets, stars, suns etc. -> life on Earth. Which makes no sense because religious people DENY the big bang so there's a contradiction 

    https://www.google.com/search?q=victims+of+religion&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=x&ved=0ahukewihu9jugorfahwkmeakhbtib00q_auidigb&biw=1920&bih=963&safe=active

    Blues and Raptors handed two very toxic teams embarrassing losses, 95% of the sports world is rejoicing in the news

    Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom 

    http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  • @Aranea

    >"...that means there's a higher rule than god and thus god is no longer god."

    How does this make sense?
    Zombieguy1987
  • There are a lot of "points" above, there are a lot of theories above, there are a lot of "big words" above. I'm sure there will be below.
    The only words that have real meaning are science and education. Eventually, we find the truth … or the most logical theory …. and settle on it, and/or keep looking. 

    IMO, we haven't found one serious actual fact that verifies the existence of any god, of any religion. We've found many barely arguable facts that evolution and the workings of a "natural god", (mother nature, if you will), is far more likely. I'll stick with that until some huge guy with white hair throws a lightning bolt at my derriere and convinces me different. ;-)
    Zombieguy1987Plaffelvohfen
  • @ethang5 Let's go with this point-by-point. If god is a  creator god, then there was a point in which god created all things, right?

    Zombieguy1987
  • @Aranea Well if their is no god, then then how were we evolved and created? There may have a chemical reaction behind it, but what created the objects to cause this reaction?
  • @Aranea

    >Let's go with this point-by-point.

    Ok. I love going point-by-point.

    >If god is a  creator god, then there was a point in which god created all things, right?

    Not really. Time, (what you call "points") is also a creation of God. So there is a "point" time began, but God was not bound by that point in any way.

    But for the sake of argument, I'll accept your simplistic conclusion.

    OK. Now what?
  • @ethang5

    What actual evidence do you have to support your assertion that god created time? 
    AlofRI
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • The answer to ALL these "points" is "time" will tell.
    Eventually, science and knowledge will answer all questions. MY money is on the "natural god" also known as Mother Nature, and religions, eventually, turning into mythology.
    PlaffelvohfenZeusAres42
  • @ethang5 ;
    Sorry for the late reply. Kinda lost track between all my posts. To your point:

    But god was bound to that point, for it exists as a principle that ‘god’ abided by, right?

    This is the crux of the problem with the idea of a creator god. If god abides by a principle (being the point of transitioning), then it inherently is bigger than god, thus negating the god as god at all. 

  • Causal physics, where every action results from a previous action, do not necessarily apply to eternal gods. If there was a God, as described by a religious text as the Beginning and the End, then there's no reason to say that the same God hasn't always existed. Quantum particles don't behave in the same way as the matter we perceive. A metaphysical being could easily behave differently than the way we see things.
    "We're all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." 
  • @Plaffelvohfen

    Please pay attention. Aranea asked,

    "If god is a  creator god, then there was a point in which god created all things, right?"

    So we are both going on the assumption that the universe was created by God. And as an educated person, I know time is a function of matter through space. Thus, if I assume God created space and matter, He also created time.

    But there is something I'd like to complain about. People here always assume you need to prove things not vital to your argument.

    If I contradict a claim that says "if God created anything, then He is bound to a sequence, and that means there's a higher rule than god and thus god is no longer god,"
    has nothing to do with God being the creator of time. It distracts from the topic, and some simpleton will claim that if I cannot show that God created time, then the original claim I am opposing is true. Silly. 

    One argument at a time. 
  • @Aranea

    >Sorry for the late reply. Kinda lost track between all my posts.

    No worries.

    >To your point:

    But god was bound to that point, for it exists as a principle that ‘god’ abided by, right?

    No. Not right. What does this even mean? What "principle"? What does " abided by" mean? What does "bound to" mean? You seem to just be throwing words around.

    >This is the crux of the problem with the idea of a creator god.

    Sorry. I still don't see it.

    >If god abides by a principle (being the point of transitioning), then it inherently is bigger than god, thus negating the god as god at all.

    This is an assumption for which you offer no proof. Further, it makes no sense whatsoever, as there is no causal logical relationship between your premise and your conclusion.

    Your position is not even a rational argument, it's a ad hoc conclusion based on an illogical assumption.

    Perhaps you need to explain it better.

  • @K_Michael I'm not talking about physics or the principle of every action needing a previous action. I'm stating that, if god created all things, then there was a sequence in order for the creation to take place. Therefore, god is now bound to this principle and thus now god is no longer god since a principle exceeds the lord.
  • @ethang5 ;Let me break down my statement further:

    -God created all things as a creator god.

    -Since god created all things as a creator god, creation took place.

    -Since creation took place, there was a point prior to creation before it took place, or else things would have always been here at all times.

    -Since there was a point prior to creation, there was a transition from prior creation to creation.

    -Since there was a transition from prior creation to creation, a principle of transitional sequence took place.

    -Since there is a principle of transitional sequence, god abided by this principle since god engaged in the action of transitioning all things from prior creation to creation.

    -Since god abided by this principle by engaging it, then that principle inherently is above god since god couldn’t create things without engaging in that principle.

    -Since god couldn’t avoid that principle, the principle is above god.

    -Since the principle is above god, it is therefore higher than god and thus rendering god as a lesser thing, making god not god in conclusion.

  • DeeDee 382 Pts
    edited February 19
    I would agree , believers have zero evidence for a god and are merely victims of indoctrination . They cannot even define their god or agree amongst themselves regarding god words and interpretations of such which is why are are over 30,000 denominations of Christianity alone .

    Imagine if your mother told you your uncle Harry would be coming for a visit Sunday and he never showed and this happened every Sunday for a year you would reasonably conclude , he’s dead , missing or doesn’t exist , if your mother went on to say well he does exist but  you cannot see , hear or touch him you would reasonably conclude your unfortunate mother was insane , this is the nonsense believers put up with for an entire lifetime and the lunacy of it never crosses their minds 
    AlofRI
  • ethang5 said:
    @Plaffelvohfen

    Please pay attention. Aranea asked,

    How is that relevant to my question: What actual evidence do you have to support your assertion that god created time? (or space-time and matter if you prefer, you can use prime mover instead of god, doesn't matter)

    Aranea argues that the very idea of a prime mover (or creator god) is what makes religions absolutely false. I don't agree with that, so I'm not trying to argue in her favor here. 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @Plaffelvohfen ;Even though you’re not responding to me, I do want to interject. Firstly, I’m a guy. Second, why do you disagree with my assertion?

  • That is a good point but, then you could apply the same idea to any other creation theory. Let’s take the Big Bang for example, it couldn’t be the only thing that created because an explosion due to the laws of physics, doesn’t just “happen.” And, taking the part where you say that the god(s) would no longer be all powerful, what would have created the thing that created the gods? You see, it is hopeless to ponder these things because you always get something that created something that created something that came from nothing.
    Sovereignty for Kekistan
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 441 Pts
    edited February 19
    Aranea said:
    @Plaffelvohfen ;Even though you’re not responding to me, I do want to interject. Firstly, I’m a guy. Second, why do you disagree with my assertion?

    Sorry about misgendering you, the nickname and picture were maybe a bit misleading... It's noted though, it won't happen again! ;)

    Now, while I agree that the idea of a creator god is unnecessary for the universe (space-time-matter-energy) to exist, it is still not enough on its own to invalidate all religions. Which is the assertion you made in the original question. THAT is my point of contention... 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @Plaffelvohfen

    -To be nitpicky, I didn’t state all religions, just ones with a creator god in general on this particular topic.

    -Why is it not enough to invalidate religions with creator gods?

    Plaffelvohfen
  • @Aranea

    -Why is it not enough to invalidate religions with creator gods?
    Because they can anchor God in the very nature of Existence, if Existence exists than God exist... God=Yin and Existence=Yang allegory... Just by existing s/he/it allowed the universe (not existence) to happen, like a prerequisite condition if not actual first cause, etc... But, they'll then have a harder time arguing for an interventionist and personal God and may have to recognize their holy books as invalid... I can live with that! ;)  
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @Aranea

    The physics that God created do not automatically apply to him. You seem to think that everything must follow the same laws. Once again, quantum particles, which, similarly to God, we cannot fully comprehend, do not follow Newtonian physics. God is independent of his creation.
    "We're all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." 
  • @Dee

    All I can say to you is that words mean things.

    God is not a human being, so it would be silly to expect things of Him that you would of humans.

    I don't know who's been promising you a visit from God, but you probably need to curb that relationship a bit.

    I'm always amazed at atheists who demand an appearance from God. They can never tell me why God should bow to their demand or what would change if He did.

    Your thinking ability does not justify your arrogance. Take it down a notch, if you don't know, this forum is public.
  • @Plaffelvohfen

    >How is that relevant to my question:

    We both were accepting a claim for arguments sake. Not making claims per se.

    >What actual evidence do you have to support your assertion that god created time? (or space-time and matter if you prefer, you can use prime mover instead of god, doesn't matter)

    I told you. Do you need me to use smaller words?

    >Aranea argues that the very idea of a prime mover (or creator god) is what makes religions absolutely false. I don't agree with that, so I'm not trying to argue in her favor here. 

    And to do that he temporarily accepts a creator God. Yet you have no issue with him making the exact assumption.

    Since time is a function of matter through space, the creator of matter and space must by logical extension be the creator of time.

    Please be precise with your questions.
    1. Was the universe created?
    2. Did God create the universe?
    And
    3. What evidence is there for either of those questions?

    Are different things. What are you asking?
  • @Aranea

    >Let me break down my statement further:

    Good. So you can see where your logic fails.

    >God created all things as a creator god.

    OK.

    >Since god created all things as a creator god, creation took place.

    That follows.

    >Since creation took place, there was a point prior to creation before it took place, or else things would have always been here at all times.

    This is illogical, as there was no "point" before creation. But I want to show your other logical error so I will accept this for now

    >Since there was a point prior to creation, there was a transition from prior creation to creation.

    Again no. But I want to show your other logical error so I will accept this for now.

    >Since there was a transition from prior creation to creation, a principle of transitional sequence took place.

    I don't follow. Are you saying that "principles" come into existence simply by things happening? And then God (and us) are immediately  locked, bound, and ruled by these "principles"? Or that all subsequent transitional sequences must follow this pattern? Why?

    >Since there is a principle of transitional sequence, god abided by this principle since god engaged in the action of transitioning all things from prior creation to creation.

    I still fail to see your logic here. Are you saying that once God does something, a principle is established that forces Him to behave in the same way every subsequent time? And that principle rules God and thus makes Him invalid??

    Could you actually be saying that?

    >Since god abided by this principle by engaging it, then that principle inherently is above god since god couldn’t create things without engaging in that principle.

    This is where you go wholly off the tracks. First, you assume a principle exists. Why? Second, you assume God engaged it instead of creating it. Why? Third, you assume that God "engaging" this "principle", proves He could not create without "engaging" this principle. Why? Finally, you assume....

    >Since god couldn’t avoid that principle, the principle is above god.

    Which leads to my original question. How does this make sense? How do you logically get from the shaky "couldn't avoid it" to, "is above God"?

    >Since the principle is above god, it is therefore higher than god and thus rendering god as a lesser thing, making god not god in conclusion.

    I find this argument lacking in logic. You have made unwarranted  assumptions built upon assumptions. Layers of them.

    As your premises are illogical, your conclusion is untrue. This argument as it is, does not make sense.

    Do you know of Einstein's theory of relativity?

  • @ethang5

    ->How is that relevant to my question:
       We both were accepting a claim for arguments sake. Not making claims per se.
    I had to retrace all the bits scattered throughout all your interactions but ok, I see where I went sideways. You both accepted as true the premise that a god created the universe. I guess that it's my only real point of contention with this premise, because I have no choice but to agree that whatever caused the universe to become, was by definition, unbound by the laws of this universe. I just don't agree that this "whatever" is a god...

    The conclusion that it would invalidate all religions with a creator god, I've already addressed and disagreed. 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @Plaffelvohfen

    >I just don't agree that this "whatever" is a god... 

    That seems strange as to me as God is the most plausible theory.

    Not necessarily God as depicted in any religion but God as in first cause initiating the universe and being separate from it.

    All other theories suffer grave logical problems.
    Zombieguy1987
  • DeeDee 382 Pts
    @ethang5


    >All I can say to you is that words mean things.


    Wow ,there’s no fooling you is there?


    >God is not a human being, so it would be silly to expect things of Him that you would of humans.


    I don’t believe in a god so that piece of babble in meaningless 


    > I don't know who's been promising you a visit from God, but you probably need to curb that relationship a bit.


    Are you on medication? 


    I’m an atheist why would I expect a visit from a fiction?


    >I'm always amazed at atheists who demand an appearance from God. 


    So am I as I’ve yet to meet one 


    >They can never tell me why God should bow to their demand or what would change if He did.


    You truly are unbalanced 


    >Your thinking ability does not justify your arrogance. 


    You’re the one who has just gone off on a solo rant babbling nonsense, and no wrong again what you deem arrogance is merely your hurt feelings at having no defense as my piece specifically referenced the ridiculous position a theist in in using a simple analogy lost on you it seems ....too simple?


    >Take it down a notch, if you don't know, this forum is public


    Oh it’s down real low you’re the one throwing a hissy fit .Yes it is public even nuts like you are allowed on it 


  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 441 Pts
    edited February 21
    @ethang5

    Not necessarily God as depicted in any religion but God as in first cause initiating the universe and being separate from it.
    A deistic god then? Classical or Modern? 
    Maybe a pantheistic one? Like (arguably) Spinoza's?

    I think that these just ultimately name "God" whatever is currently unknown or it can be referred to as the "god of the gaps" if you like... I find these propositions to be unsatisfactory. But we could maybe debate that in a separate thread, I don't think it would be appropriate to do so here... 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @Dee

    All I can say to you is that words mean things.

    >Wow ,there’s no fooling you is there?

    Nope. Saying you've never met  God shows how you haven't a clue what the word "God" means.

    God is not a human being, so it would be silly to expect things of Him that you would of humans.

    >I don’t believe in a god so that piece of babble in meaningless 

    Right, you're so stupid that if someone said unicorns didn't have horns, your response would be you don't believe in unicorns.

    I don't know who's been promising you a visit from God, but you probably need to curb that relationship a bit.

    >Are you on medication? 

    Do threadmills count?

    >I’m an atheist why would I expect a visit from a fiction?

    Like I said, it would be silly.

    I'm always amazed at atheists who demand an appearance from God. 

    >So am I as I’ve yet to meet one 

    I've met plenty. For most st of them, that is their argument.

    They can never tell me why God should bow to their demand or what would change if He did.

    >You truly are unbalanced 

    And your debate skills are impressive.

    Your thinking ability does not justify your arrogance. 

    >You’re the one who has just gone off on a solo rant babbling nonsense, and no wrong again what you deem arrogance is merely your hurt feelings at having no defense as my piece specifically referenced the....

    TL:DNR

    >Take it down a notch, if you don't know, this forum is public

    >Oh it’s down real low you’re the one throwing a hissy fit.

    Lol. Yet another dweeb with absolutely no self awareness.

    >Yes it is public even nuts like you are allowed on it.

    Thanks for demonstrating my point.

    Zombieguy1987
  • @Plaffelvohfen

    I'd rather explore 3 things.
    why you think a deistic God is unsatisfactory,
    What the idea of "God" means to you, and
    What do you think started the universe.
  • DeeDee 382 Pts
    @ethang5

    >Nope. Saying you've never met  God shows how you haven't a clue what the word "God" means.


    What a typically stupid reply , I’ve never said I met god dummy because I don’t believe in god 


    >God is not a human being, so it would be silly to expect things of Him that you would of humans.


    To me there is no god so I expect nothing from a fiction I don’t believe in




    >Right, you're so stupid that if someone said unicorns didn't have horns, your response would be you don't believe in unicorns.


    No incorrect again slow Joe , most rational beings have an idea what a fictional unicorn looks like just like they know what a fictional god looks like , my parents used to read us fairy stories to amuse us ......you’re still clinging to them 





    >I don't know who's been promising you a visit from God, but you probably need to curb that relationship a bit.


    I’m still an atheist you dummy , 



    >Do threadmills count?


    I approve your minder excercises you excellent 



    >Like I said, it would be silly.


    Which is why you keep saying it , you really need to look up the term atheist 





    >I've met plenty. For most st of them, that is their argument.


    Good for you , so go argue that with them 


    >They can never tell me why God should bow to their demand or what would 

    change if He did.


    So why are you telling me what others are saying how’s that relevant?


    >And your debate skills are impressive.


    You’re stating the obvious now son , I see you have the self same battle with everyone who disagrees with your childish nonsense but as another stated you’re only 12 years of age ......I pitched at 9





    >Lol. Yet another dweeb with absolutely no self awareness.


    Lol. Yet another butt buddy of Wee Willy Craig 




    >Thanks for demonstrating my point.


    You’re thanking me for demonstrating you’re a nut , the credit is all yours as can be evidenced from your pathetic attempts at evangelizing 


  • @Dee

    Nope. Saying you've never met  God shows how you haven't a clue what the word "God" means.

    >What a typically stupid reply , I’ve never said I met god dummy because I don’t believe in god

    I know. But you did say you've never met God. See the "never" idiot?

    You said, 

    >believers have zero evidence for a god and are merely victims of indoctrination .

    >Imagine if your mother told you your uncle Harry would be coming for a visit Sunday and he never showed and this happened every Sunday for a year you would reasonably conclude , he’s dead , missing or doesn’t exist , if your mother went on to say well he does exist but  you cannot see , hear or touch him you would reasonably conclude your unfortunate mother was insane , this is the nonsense believers put up with for an entire lifetime and the lunacy of it never crosses their minds 

    Is this not a complaint about a no show God?

    God is not a human being, so it would be silly to expect things of Him that you would of humans.

    >To me there is no god so I expect nothing from a fiction I don’t believe in

    >Right, you're so stupid that if someone said unicorns didn't have horns, your response would be you don't believe in unicorns.

    >No incorrect again slow Joe , most rational beings have an idea what a fictional unicorn looks like... 

    Rational adults can still talk about things they consider fictional. Even God..

    >....you’re still clinging to them 

    Lol. And you are still desperate to spill your bile against God. It's actually funny how obsessed you are with God.

    >I don't know who's been promising you a visit from God, but you probably need to curb that relationship a bit.

    >I’m still an atheist you dummy , 

    I know.

    Like I said, it would be silly.

    >Which is why you keep saying it , you really need to look up the term atheist.

    You make it seem as if it's synonymous with idiot

    I've met plenty. For most of them, that is their argument.

    >Good for you , so go argue that with them 

    I am. Remember your mom and uncle Harry coming for a visit?

    They can never tell me why God should bow to their demand or what would change if He did.

    >So why are you telling me what others are saying how’s that relevant?

    Wait for it. Waaaait for it.

    And your debate skills are impressive.

    >You’re stating the obvious now son ,

    Lol.

    >I see you have the self same battle with everyone who disagrees with your childish nonsense but as another stated you’re only 12 years of age ......I pitched at 9

    "Everyone" being you and that moron? Lol OK.

    Lol. Yet another dweeb with absolutely no self awareness.

    >Lol. Yet another butt buddy of Wee Willy Craig 

    There you go after God again. You guys are so predictable.

    Thanks for demonstrating my point.

    >You’re thanking me for demonstrating you’re a nut ,

    Yeah. That's what you've "demonstrated".

    >...the credit is all yours...

    ROFL!

    >...as can be evidenced from your pathetic attempts at evangelizing

    Evangelizing? I have not mentioned God or religion. You keep going to God. Wait, are you trying to be stupid?

    It's difficult to believe you're this stupid unintentionally.

    Zombieguy1987
  • Maybe I am a weird person, but somehow I always knew all these stories to be false. I know some children, for example, believe in Santa-Claus until a certain age; but I somehow never really believed in one. 

    I think my parents are to "blame" for this: back when I was 4 or so, they started putting various science popularising books for children in my room. The first somewhat serious book I read in my life was a book on aviation, which I read at 6 - I barely understood anything aside from the pictures, but I remember being absolutely fascinated with the fact that there are so many things I do not know about the world yet, and I really wanted to learn it all. I still do.

    All these things are very natural to me. I hear something, and I think, "Okay, this is a statement. Let us see if it is true or not". It is very hard for me to imagine how people exposed instead to religious stories from the early age think. Is it more like, "Okay, someone I respect says it, so it must be true"?

    I have talked to a lot of religious people in my life. Some of them I respect immensely. One deeply religious Catholic had a PhD in mathematics and worked in a very sophisticated area of topology. It always felt to me like they had trouble trying to reconcile their beliefs with their habit of employing scientific method on an everyday basis in their lives. Religion says one thing, cold raw mathematical logic says the opposite - and somehow they try to maintain both positions at once. It is very bizarre.

    I have never taken religions seriously, and it is hard for me to imagine how an adult person can. There are certain things we grow out of: playing with toys, relying on our parents, crying every time something does not go our way... I would think believing in fantasy stories should be one of those things, yet we have billions of adults talking seriously about supernatural beings running the world from behind the shadows. I have never understood this. 
    I can somewhat understand following totalitarian ideologies, such as socialism or fascism: sure, they are based on countless logical fallacies, but, at least, they try to describe the world around us! Believing in something that is taken straight out of fantasy books with magic and dwarfs/elves... This is beyond my understanding. 5,000 years ago it could be understandable, but today?
  • ethang5 said:
    @Plaffelvohfen

    I'd rather explore 3 things.
    why you think a deistic God is unsatisfactory,
    What the idea of "God" means to you, and
    What do you think started the universe.
    I really would have liked to explore these with you, but I can't stand intellectual dishonesty and you've clearly demonstrated that it doesn't bother you at all,
    so I'll have to pass on this and on other opportunities to debate anything with you...

    Pretty sure there are plenty of actually honest debaters here to indulge me on those questions. 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • DeeDee 382 Pts
    @Plaffelvohfen

    Well said and your assessment is spot on the dishonesty is appalling, You  have behaved like a perfect gentleman  
    Plaffelvohfen
  • @Dee

    I suspect he's a fan of Bill Craig, so it is not surprising to find intellectual dishonesty in the discourse IMO...
    I tried though, I really did, but I don't have to suffer this... 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • DeeDee 382 Pts
    @Plaffelvohfen

    Your correct he’s a big Craig fan who’s Divinine Command nonsense is the go to argument for this lot , it’s being throughly debunked but they do persist .

    Ethang is dishonest and thinks he’s clever by not defining  his terms as in objective , subjective and authoritative as one other pointed out also , he’s merely acting like a spoiled child 

    Plaffelvohfen
  • DeeDee 382 Pts
    edited February 23
     



    @ethang5

    >Nope. Saying you've never met  God shows how you haven't a clue what the word "God" means.


    But you’ve never met god you clown so on your own ”logic” you don’t know what that the word “god” means .....checkmate again


    >I know. But you did say you've never met God. See the "never" idiot?


    Neither have you dummy so again you haven’t a clue what that word means .....another  checkmate 


    >Is this not a complaint about a no show God?

    No it’s just demonstrating you believe in a fiction you’ve never seen , heard or touched 


    >God is not a human being, so it would be silly to expect things of Him that you would of humans.

    You have a point it is silly to ask a fiction to show up only the gullible would accept that .....checkmate again


    >Lol. And you are still desperate to spill your bile against God. It's actually funny how obsessed you are with God.

    Lol.Bile against a fiction ehhh no , you’re just angry and fuming at Allah because Muslims say he’s the one true god.

    Newsflash you’re the one fighting with half the site with your religious mania


    >You make it seem as if it's synonymous with idiot

    Wait , you’re the idiot who believes in a water walking zombie because Craig told you it’s true 


    > I am. Remember your mom and uncle Harry coming for a visit?

    Oh you mean the analogy that went over your head? Get Willie to explain it 


    >”Everyone" being you and that moron? Lol OK.

    Don’t be shy there’s several more agree you’re a god obsessed idiot 


    >There you go after God again. You guys are so predictable.

    Your insanity is escalating is this because of your hatred of Muslims?


    >Evangelizing? I have not mentioned God or religion. You keep going to God. Wait, are you trying to be stupid?

    >It's difficult to believe you're this stupid unintentionally.


    Oh right you wish to take it up a notch , cool..........

    Your mother took the wrong option she should have swallowed ......In fairness though if you grow up to be half the man she is well that’s something at least ........

    Yes ,oh lying now as well you’ve mentioned in glowing terms your adoration for god and Willie Craig on site or are you denying this now as well? Don’t answer that as you will resort to lying again just the way Craig does when cornered, but hey you’re a .......”Christian “ aren’t you?



  • @Plaffelvohfen

    >I really would have liked to explore these with you, but I can't stand intellectual dishonesty and you've clearly demonstrated that it doesn't bother you at all,...

    If intellectual dishonesty bothered me, I could not talk to atheists on forum boards. I see no reason the dishonesty of others should bother me.

    >so I'll have to pass on this and on other opportunities to debate anything with you... 

    I'll cry myself to sleep tonight.

    >Pretty sure there are plenty of actually honest debaters here to indulge me on those questions. 

    Will you award them a certificate of honesty by the power vested in you?

    It would be a pleasure to be rid of your bloated ego.
  • @Dee

    Nope. Saying you've never met  God shows how you haven't a clue what the word "God" means.

    >But you’ve never met god you clown so on your own ”logic” you don’t know what that the word “god” means .....checkmate again

    How stupid are you? Unlike you, I've never complained of never meeting God. You have.

    I know. But you did say you've never met God. See the "never" idiot?

    >Neither have you dummy so again you haven’t a clue what that word means .....another  checkmate 

    Repeating stupidity doesn't help you. Only idiots complain about never meeting God.

    Is this not a complaint about a no show God?

    >No it’s just demonstrating you believe in a fiction you’ve never seen , heard or touched 

    By complaining that you've never met God. You cannot possibly know what the word "God" means if your argument is that He's never shown Himself to you.

    God is not a human being, so it would be silly to expect things of Him that you would of humans.

    >You have a point it is silly to ask a fiction to show up only the gullible would accept that .....checkmate again

    Yet you keep using his not showing up as evidence for your argument. That is quite silly.

    Lol. And you are still desperate to spill your bile against God. It's actually funny how obsessed you are with God.

    Lol. Bile against a fiction ehhh no , you’re just angry and fuming at Allah because Muslims say he’s the one true god.

    Now you've brought up 2 gods! For an atheist, you sure bring up god a lot.

    >Newsflash you’re the one fighting with half the site with your religious mania

    Please stop being an idiot. Right is not in consensus. You are the typical moron who thinks fans prove he's right, so you play to the gallery. I could not care less.

    Plus, I have not mentioned God or religion. You have. The only mania here is your God phobia making you suspect every argument is about God.

    You make it seem as if it's synonymous with idiot

    >Wait , you’re the idiot who believes in a water walking zombie because Craig told you it’s true 

    Lol. Having run out of things to say, you now put your vacuous stupidity in high gear. You may even be a sock puppet for zombieguy.

    I am. Remember your mom and uncle Harry coming for a visit?

    >Oh you mean the analogy that went over your head? Get Willie to explain it 

    Lol. It was an analogy for what? Who is the uncle who never shows up moron? Don't worry, I'd distance myself from that bit of stupidity too if I had said it.

    ”Everyone" being you and that moron? Lol OK.

    >Don’t be shy there’s several more agree you’re a god obsessed idiot 

    And yet only you keep bring up God.  This is the Religion thread moron. You're supposed to be an atheist, yet here you are, on the religion thread, waxing stupid with a theist, and continuously bringing up God. Again I ask, are you trying to be stupid?

    There you go after God again. You guys are so predictable.

    >Your insanity is escalating is this because of your hatred of Muslims?

    I've been on forum for years. I know how to deal with idiots like you. Your type is a dime a dozen online. You can't upset me, or scare me, or outlast me. I will allow you to parade your stupidity for as long as you like.

    Evangelizing? I have not mentioned God or religion. You keep going to God. Wait, are you trying to be stupid?

    It's difficult to believe you're this stupid unintentionally.

    >Oh right you wish to take it up a notch , cool..........

    You mean you can be more stupid? Wow.

    >Your mother took the wrong option she should have swallowed ......In fairness though if you grow up to be half the man she is well that’s something at least ........

    Lol. A your mother joke? ROFL. Are your fans cheering? Let's explore just how stupid you are. 

    I've been trying to talk about immorality and you have constantly brought up God. And now you're talking about Allah and  making yo mamma jokes. Your IQ must be really high.

    >Yes ,oh lying now as well you’ve mentioned in glowing terms your adoration for god and Willie Craig on site...

    I don't know who Willie is or how your delusion made you believe I "mentioned" adoration for him or her(?) But I am not interested in your mental issues.

    >..or are you denying this now as well?

    Till you post your delusion, yes.

    >Don’t answer that...

    Too late.

    >...as you will resort to lying again just the way Craig does when cornered, but hey you’re a .......”Christian “ aren’t you?

    Whoever this Craig fellow is, he probably should give his security pictures of your mug. You seem to have a slight problem with a God obsession.

    In your reply, perhaps you could bring up Krishna too? Cover all the bases so to speak.

    What an idiot.
  • @ethang5

    I am curious, what dishonesty are you talking about? From what I have seen, atheists tend to be pretty straight about their claims. While the religious people employ the dodgy rhetoric such as, "There is God, but it is not really the God you are thinking about, it is not something you can understand, it is not human, blah-blah-blah". It is always some mystical "it exists, but I cannot explain to you what it is" claims.

    Ask me about anything that I think exists, and I will be able to explain to you clearly what, in my understanding, that something is, what you can do to confirm its existence and so on. I will not talk about some ethereal deity that I can communicate with, but not in a way that anyone can understand. 

    Intellectual dishonesty is when you know your argumentation is flawed, yet make an effort to ignore its flaws. Atheists do not need to do that with regards to the subject, because they do not talk about fairy tales being a reality in the first place. Does not mean they cannot be intellectually dishonest in other ways, but on the subject of religion they are as honest as one can get.
  • DeeDee 382 Pts
    edited February 23


    @ethang5


    >How stupid are you? Unlike you, I've never complained of never meeting God. You have.

    Hey dummy neither have I , if I had that would make me a just an angry theist like you 


    >Repeating stupidity doesn't help you. Only idiots complain about never meeting God.

    Stop doing it then 


    >Yet you keep using his not showing up as evidence for your argument. That is quite silly.

    You are making no sense at all you idiot 


    >Now you've brought up 2 gods! For an atheist, you sure bring up god a lot.

    But you’re the one who is angry at Allah which is why you choose Christianity hoping one of your gods may show up 


    >Please stop being an idiot. Right is not in consensus. You are the typical moron who thinks fans prove he's right, so you play to the gallery. I could not care less.

    Stop saying really stupid things and attempting to get the support of the resident Bible bashers it’s not impressive 

    >Plus, I have not mentioned God or religion. You have. The only mania here is your God phobia making you suspect every argument is about God.

    You just did three times you idiot 


    >Lol. Having run out of things to say, you now put your vacuous stupidity in high gear. You may even be a sock puppet for zombieguy

    But you’re the idiot who believes in that BS not I , that’s your only option now deny your own beliefs 


    >Lol. It was an analogy for what? Who is the uncle who never shows up moron? Don't worry, I'd distance myself from that bit of stupidity too if I had said it.

    You really are dumb buddy , don’t worry if your fiction ever shows let me know 


    >And yet only you keep bring up God.  This is the Religion thread moron. You're supposed to be an atheist, yet here you are, on the religion thread, waxing stupid with a theist, and continuously bringing up God. Again I ask, are you trying to be stupid?

    There you go again bringing up God oh dear , oh dear ......Wow ! Only you the resident Bible thumper is allowed on this thread 


    >Iknow how to deal with idiots like you. Your type is a dime a dozen online. You can't upset me, or scare me, or outlast me. I will allow you to parade your stupidity for as long as you like.

    Wow ! You’re so scary mister bar room brawler .....please don’t hurt me 


    >Its  difficult to believe you're this stupid unintentionally.

    You’ve genetics on your side regarding stupidity 



    >You mean you can be more stupid? Wow.

    Stop crying little girl 


    >Lol. A your mother joke? ROFL. Are your fans cheering? Let's explore just how stupid you are. 

    Most likely while the Bible bashes sulk and pray 

    >I've been trying to talk about immorality and you have constantly brought up God. And now you're talking about Allah and  making yo mamma jokes. Your IQ must be really high.

    You don’t know what objective morality means despite 7 different people asking you , you don’t know what subjective morality means , and you keep bleating on about Authoritative morality but cannot define it ..... now that’s just plain stupidity on a different level

    There you go again about Allah , let it go your anger at realizing you may have picked the wrong god is truly worrying 


    >I don't know who Willie is or how your delusion made you believe I "mentioned" adoration for him or her(?) But I am not interested in your mental issues.

    Ah your denying Craig as well now at least your madness has consistency 

    >Till you post your delusion, yes.

    Yes run off maybe and edit it out , it’s a tad embarrassing 


    > Whoever this Craig fellow is, he probably should give his security pictures of your mug. You seem to have a slight problem with a God obsession.

    To late buddy I’m not the  one who wrote an licking piece about Craig , there ya go mentioning god again and another one as well , what an idiot 


    Let’s cut to the chase you Troll here is what you said regarding morality and it’s no wonder you want to deny it it’s shockingly stupid and no doubt  very embarrassing for you which is why you distance yourself from it .......


    >ethang  said ......


    Christianity does NOT say atheists lack morals. It says the morality of atheists lack authority. That is a different argument. The morality of an atheist is simply his personal tastes. 

    As such, there is no reason why anyone other than that atheist should be obligated to follow that moral code. The morality of a Christian though, is objective, and applies to everyone, regardless of what anyone thinks of it.


    Thats it your morality is objective because it comes from god ( which you keep denying ) and everyone else is wrong because you say so.

    Now that’s hilarious you’re a right little dictator aren’t you?


Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch