Who won? | |||
| The Athiest | 40 | 70.18% | |
| The creationist | 17 | 29.82% | |
| Total: | 57 | ||
To all VGChartz readers, I have a very important public service announcement for you.
Salvation may be yours, if only you believe.
I'm here to inform you that he is real...
The Flying Spaghetti Monster exists!
Don't believe me? Then prove that he doesn't exist.
| badgenome said: This also works for "How to argue for Neo Keynesianism." |
The difference though is, "We are all Keynesians now", including Obama, no matter how many protest to the contrary about Obama. And I suggest HIGHLY people look up what a Keynesian is before they get on me for saying it.
LOL.. There is no true evidence scientific or not which can prove or disprove the existance of God.
I don't want to get in an argument, and I'm not taking any side, however, the person claiming that something that cannot be seen nor felt needs to prove that it exists, not the other way around. It's like me saying that I have an invisible friend, you don't need proof to tell me that it doesn't exist the fact that you can't see it nor feel it is proof enough. I however need to prove to you that it exists.
| Zappykins said: Ha ha! funny! One of my favorites is when a fundamentalist goes into the 'banana was made for humans' verbiage then I ask about pineapples. Pineapples are spiky, hard to get into (without a knife/tool) and the plants they grow on a sword stabbing beast. (Seriously, their leaves can hurt when they accidentally pierce you when you are just walking buy. ) Religion is like a favorite sexual position it is a private thing and noneones business unless you make it. And please do not assume I want to join you in it. |
Religion is like a penis. You're more than welcome to have one and by all means be proud of it, but keep it hidden in public and don't bring it out in schools.
| Talal said: I don't want to get in an argument, and I'm not taking any side, however, the person claiming that something that cannot be seen nor felt needs to prove that it exists, not the other way around. It's like me saying that I have an invisible friend, you don't need proof to tell me that it doesn't exist the fact that you can't see it nor feel it is proof enough. I however need to prove to you that it exists. |
It's amazing how such simple logic is overlooked. I'm not claiming there is no god, I'm saying I've not seen any evidence so I'll go on not believing in any god. I don't aggressively believe there is no god, there's just no belief either way.
I DO however believe that if there is a god, I wouldn't trust religion because man is selfish and prone to corruption. Even if there is a divine being, a higher creator, I would never go to church or believe any of the religions becuase I don't trust human judgement for the most part, and I certainly don't want to get my theistic fix from groups that originated and prospered during (and haven't changed since) a time when Mercury was deemed a miracle elixer and we were burning people at the stake for witchcraft. Nooooo thank you on religion. spirituality? that I'm cool with, just keep it to yourself.
| Fifaguy360 said: Elephant in the room...Ok I'll bring it out. I do believe God exists. The video is not that funny considering there are some very compelling arguments for the existence of God. The progression of logic goes like this: - Either the universe always existed(no beginning, no end) or had a starting point (big bang). -> You can't have a universe that always existed because you need cause and effect. And also considering we discovered the point of origin of the universe itself. Something had to establish the concept of space and time and then put something in that space and time to start anything. - Then who created 'that something' or what people identify as God? -> The something must have always existed without beginning nor end due to a simple line of reasoning which I think Socrates came up with: If God A wanted to create the Universe, but needed God B to create him first who needed God C to create him (B) who needed God D to create him (C) to infinity, then God A would never be able to create the universe, but yet the universe exists so I would conclude God A without needing God B existed. - How do you know it is an intelligence being? The universe is so intricately woven and there are so many dependancies that it would be illogical for such dependancies to come about without intent. I ask myself: Why is my body symmetrical? Why do I conveniently have a thumb facing my fingers to grip objects? Why is my head not where my butt is and my hands in my chest and my eyes on my nipples? Everything is so conveniently placed. A very old story and forgive me for mentioning it...but if you found a digital camera on a beach you'd never say a tornado came and blew the sand around and miraculously the granuals arranged themselves and became the camera. The camera is too complex and its features are too convenient. The way all its parts just are molded and put together are too precise and they all just fit together. I was 14 when I conceded as a thinking young adult that God must exist and he must be intelligent to design all this. |
I usually have a rule against reading more than 2 paragraphs in a religion debate, and this is precisely why. I keep hearing these arguments and they don't mean a thing. Almost every point you made can be casually dismissed with a link to Wikipedia's list of Logical Fallacies, and your one main point can be negated by asking "What made god?" If you have such strong convictions about your religion and 'the beginning of the universe HAD to be started by something', then you have to ask, if the universe had to have a creator, why doesn't god? if you're trying to be logical and rational, you have to apply the same logic to your diety as you do all other facets of the argument.
And therein lies the issue with religion, faith, fundamentalism, and Divinity: No matter how much you want to, you're not really allowed to pick and chose what you want to apply criticism to. That will never, ever win you a debate and certainly isn't going to sway anyone who doesn't believe in God.
HesAPooka said:
Right ;) |
And there you were going along thinking you were having a meaningful discussion,...turns out the dude didn't even read your first response lol. Classic. I'm sure he/she applies the same 'tatics' to their views on religion, i.e. by not reading anything but having a purported informed opinion. Classic lol
Nintendo Network ID: DaRevren
I love My Wii U, and the potential it brings to gaming.
| Talal said: I don't want to get in an argument, and I'm not taking any side, however, the person claiming that something that cannot be seen nor felt needs to prove that it exists, not the other way around. It's like me saying that I have an invisible friend, you don't need proof to tell me that it doesn't exist the fact that you can't see it nor feel it is proof enough. I however need to prove to you that it exists. |
ha ha, that's pure rubbish! I'll simply say, to counter your point, that you need the right TOOLS and dedicated RESEARCH to PROVE whether somethng is true or not.For scientists don't go around proving things without the right TOOLS and dedicated RESEARCH. So my question to you would be what TOOLS and how much RESEARCH have you put into proving whether God exists?
Nintendo Network ID: DaRevren
I love My Wii U, and the potential it brings to gaming.
I'm fine with most atheists even if it's a super heated debate.
What pisses me off is when an atheist thinks science=atheism. Um hello, I'm a science guy yet I'm not an atheist. Also I find pastafarianism annoying. It's funny to use it as a joke but using it as an argument against religion just shows how little you know. The video I can laugh at because there are tons of blind and ignorant Jesus freaks just asking for trouble when talking to atheists.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
