A Depressing Thought That Just Occurred to Me

[Dread_Reaper]

And HOW does the accomplishments of man DISPROVE the existence of God?

If anything, it should prove that it's possible for a "benevolent, sentient being" to create the world in seven days.

Sorry, but wtF?

If you want to disprove God, do it in a way that doesn't reveal your pseudo smart guy facade.

You sort of took my post in an unexpected direction and extrapolated a different argument than I had originally intended, but whatever, I'll roll with it.

Here's a little bit of wisdom for you, from a guy who's a lot smarter than you.

All of those aforementioned human accomplishments came about as the result of one thing, and sorry to tell ya bucko, it ain't God. Not even close. Science put a man on the moon. Science produced a robot that can manipulate a human cell. Science has shown us photographs of distant galaxies. That's the power of humans when they put their heads together. That's the product of empirical evidence and experimentation combined with ingenuity. That's 100% human engineering, no divine assistance.

But hey, why should I bother appeasing you by "disproving God", a character that has nothing but a 2,000 year old book and the word of some tragically-influential lunatic to vouch for his existence? Since you're clearly wearing the smarty-pants now big guy, how about you lay some wisdom on me, and tell me, in little tiny words so I can understand, how do you prove the existence of God? I'm not talking any of that pseudo-science nonsense or spiritual mumbo jumbo you folk are so fond of tossing around. I am talking hard empirical evidence, the same kind that allowed mankind to accomplish its many amazing feats.

-Dread_Reaper

 

[SenseOfTumour]

Can we quit bringing this back to God/ no God, there's more than enough discussions of that nature on here.

For me, I live in a pretty rough estate in SE England, yet, living on the top floor of a block of flats, out the front window is grey concrete and litter and cars all over.

But, if I look out the back, all I can see is open fields and rolling green hills to the horizon. It's kinda weird to be living on such a border.

 

[Jursa]

I think that whoever created this world, was a genius engineer. The clockwork of nature is impressive, but the thing is that nature levels the playing field for all creatures, meaning if the population of rabbits goes up, they start dieing. Humanity wanted to break away from this circle and started destroying the creator's engineering and replacing it with our own, thus letting us advance our generations very quickly. The problem we have today is that while we understand that God's engineering is superior, it's also a good fuel, which is a big cause of that thought of yours...

 

[Kiefer13]

Like the title says. A depressing thought that has just occurred to me is that... where I live, I can't find anywhere that hasn't been touched by humanity in any way. Even the skies. It depresses me because it is quite sick and disgusting to see what we've done. Even though it is considered "Great" by many, it's not at all great in my mind. Does anyone else find this remotely depressing?

See, I have the exact opposite view from the OP.

When I look around and see what we've accomplished; massive cities, cars, aeroplanes, computers, and everything else and then think back that not so long ago in the grand scheme of things, we were living in caves.

That is not a depressing thought. It is an inspiring one.

 

[Duck Sandwich]

Still my biggest fear is the thought of: "what if death was not inevitable what if war, famine and pestilence would be gone tomorrow how would the world be like"

Ah. Another reason to accept death - overpopulation. If this were the case, people would have a lot of incentive to create the technology needed to colonize other planets. And since the universe is supposedly infinite, they probably wouldn't be running out of planets/colonies any time soon. Then again, there might be some huge downfall to this that I'm overlooking. So... hooray for death and... giving other people a turn, so to speak.

 

[xXyZaThEx]

And HOW does the accomplishments of man DISPROVE the existence of God?

If anything, it should prove that it's possible for a "benevolent, sentient being" to create the world in seven days.

Sorry, but wtF?

If you want to disprove God, do it in a way that doesn't reveal your pseudo smart guy facade.

You sort of took my post in an unexpected direction and extrapolated a different argument than I had originally intended, but whatever, I'll roll with it.

Here's a little bit of wisdom for you, from a guy who's a lot smarter than you.

All of those aforementioned human accomplishments came about as the result of one thing, and sorry to tell ya bucko, it ain't God. Not even close. Science put a man on the moon. Science produced a robot that can manipulate a human cell. Science has shown us photographs of distant galaxies. That's the power of humans when they put their heads together. That's the product of empirical evidence and experimentation combined with ingenuity. That's 100% human engineering, no divine assistance.

But hey, why should I bother appeasing you by "disproving God", a character that has nothing but a 2,000 year old book and the word of some tragically-influential lunatic to vouch for his existence? Since you're clearly wearing the smarty-pants now big guy, how about you lay some wisdom on me, and tell me, in little tiny words so I can understand, how do you prove the existence of God? I'm not talking any of that pseudo-science nonsense or spiritual mumbo jumbo you folk are so fond of tossing around. I am talking hard empirical evidence, the same kind that allowed mankind to accomplish its many amazing feats.

-Dread_Reaper

THink of it this way. What proof do you have that proves God doesn't exist?

Now what proof is there that God does exist?

Suddenly, that 2,000 year old book seems a lot more important, eh?

And it's way more than 2,000 years old. The Bible is a collection of multiple books, each with their own age. 2,000 years ago was when Jesus was born.

Do any of the scientific achievements you've stated disprove God?

 

[NekoAnastasia]

I'm pretty glad we have medicine, hospitals, electricity, modern plumbing, and schools, actually. I didn't like the rainforest that much.

 

[Dread_Reaper]

THink of it this way. What proof do you have that proves God doesn't exist?

Now what proof is there that God does exist?

Suddenly, that 2,000 year old book seems a lot more important, eh?

And it's way more than 2,000 years old. The Bible is a collection of multiple books, each with their own age. 2,000 years ago was when Jesus was born.

Do any of the scientific achievements you've stated disprove God?

The beauty of the scientific process is that unless there is proof that something does exist, the lack of proof that it doesn't exist doesn't validate it.

For example, I could hypothesize that outside of our universe is a giant yogurt swimming pool full of cucumbers and 1960's Alfa Romeos. I have no way to scientifically prove this, but I'm saying it anyway. Of course, you can't DISPROVE that, because we can't look outside our universe. However, that doesn't mean my original hypothesis is correct, not by any stretch of the imagination.

Your entire argument on proof is a logical fallacy, and I have officially given up on the hope that you could provide me with something intelligent to discuss.

-Dread_Reaper

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

Ah the lovely religious debate. Dread would you mind ceasing the holier-than-thou attitude for the sake of atheists because frankly you are not making us appear well. By technical standards there is much you and I can agree upon however there are certainly less hostile means by which to state them, to avoid providing then impossible debate of Creationism vs. Evolution.

In the same frame of mind, XxZ do not quote the bible in a debate within this field. If you believe what is written there, by all means continue to do so, however the book by definition is fiction. It has been disproven by science, by logic and ironically by the bible itself because the bloody thing contradicts itself at every possible turn. The Bible is a creation of stories and fables that are not meant to be taken as literal proofs but more as stories possibility depicting real events.

It is all about faith, Noah's ark is a story of faith for example however logic disproves it immensely because it is beyond impossible to build an ark the size of war ships we use today, which is what the estimated required size would be. I do recommend that video of Bullshit discussing the Bible. It is not a blight against Christianity, it is more an documentary that not everything written in the bible should be taken seriously.

Nonetheless this debate is trivial because nothing I claim with disprove your faith in God nor will anything you state change my status as an atheist. This is why it is best to agree to disagree for logic and faith cannot be debated.