You're beginning to sound like a broken record mate.
You say you try to be factual. I'd like to remind you that nothing is a fact until it is proven.
Thus, unless you provide evidence, nothing you say is a fact.
This does not mean we can not have a good discussion; opinions in the form of rational arguments can help us make sense of the world just as much as hard science can. You keep calling us out about ignorance, idiocy, etc. If you keep doing that, we can not have a decent discussion about this issue that seems very dear to you. I'd like to invite you to have this discussion without calling each other liars, hypocrites, or whatever and try to make the best out of it.
Ry4truth wrote: I have had many supernatural experiances, as well as many experiances with God. it would take me an hour to type it all. but no matter what i tell you, you won't believe me. I have all the proof I need, but that proof is only for me. I was marked by the divine though, when i had my first experiance.
I have had many supernatural experiences too. One day, I say three images during my sleep, like visions. The very same day, they all actually happened. Every time I have a déjà vu now, I question myself if I have actually dreamt it before, and most of the time the answer is yes. Now, I could declare myself some kind of psychic, but I have no way of proving I have these visions. They do not prove anything, as they are only in my mind. You keep bringing up your supernatural experiences, but for all we know you might just have been on LSD.
You don't have to believe anything. But to dispell a belief without propper proof or evidence is hypocritical and childish.
I would argue believing something without proper evidence just doesn't make sense. As I said twice or more now, as nothing can be disproved, the default position should be to not believe. This is the only way to distinguish fact from fiction. I'd like you to respond to this argument for once, instead of repeating that we need to disprove faith.
EXAMPLE: You buy a lottery ticket at 12:00 in the afternoon. you are so exited that you begin to think that your a winner. In exitement you tell your best friend, who thinks that you have lost your marbles. he tells you the odds of you winning, and the fact that there is no evidence or proof that you'll win. while the best friend has every right to believe or not believe that the lotto ticket is a winner. it is disrespectfull and hurtfull to flat out tell the friend that the lotto ticket is not a winner. when it cant be proven until the appropriate time has arrived. putting someone else down when you can't even defend your own beliefs is hypocritical and childish.
So there's one key difference between winning a lottery and god; we have actually seen people win lotteries before. Many people in fact. There is plenty of proof that winning a lottery is possible. There's no proof god exists, or even that his existence is possible. Again, if you can provide us with that evidence, please do.
SECOND EXAMPLE: millions of children believe in santa clause. If you were to go around town and tell every child that santa wasn't real. you would upset alot of parents nd you would make alot of children cry. my point is that if it isnt hurting anyone leave it alone. If a specific belief or religion is hurting anyone or anything. then it should be opposed and destroyed with all possible haste.
I will repeat why I think religion is a problem later in this post, but anyway, there is also a problem with this example. The people believing in Santa are kids. Kids can afford to have unreasonable beliefs. When they grow up they stop believing in Santa because that is the reasonable thing to do. If the people believing in Santa were adults they should absolutely be told he doesn't exist. I will admit that believing in Santa is less of a problem than believing in God is; after all, people don't pray to Santa and base their actions on what Santa things would be right.
If the universe deos not have a creator then who made it?. you may argue that you can't assume that a "he" made it. you also cannot asume that a "he" deosn't exist. or that the universe didn't have a creator. the universe is complex and diverse in it's mysteries. the universe is like the ocean, we have only explored a drop of it. science is far too young to disprove God's existance. but like i said before, science and God arent enemies, they never were. science and religion are enemies, for whatever foolish reason that is unkown to me.
For the fourth time, disproving anything is impossible, thus the default position should be denial.
Also, on your question 'who made it', as I said two times before, scientists HAVE figured out a way the universe could exist without a creator, it's called the big bang theory. Now, I admit I don't understand how as I have never really payed attention in physics class, but I recommend picking up a book of Lawrence Krauss or looking him up on youtube.
Because the universe does not require a creator, the question 'who made it' does not need to be asked, rather the question 'what caused it' should be asked. Again, I refer to Lawrence Krauss.
In complete truth we do not yet understand gods origins. just becouse we dont understand something or how it works, deosnt mean its wrong or deosnt exist. it was once deamed impossible to put a man on the moon, but it happened. it was once deamed impossible for man to fly, and yet millions of people do it everyday. as an inventor i can tell you, keep an open mind towards all things.
Well, you know, nothing is impossible. We don't understand the universe well enough to say something is impossible. That God might be possible is not prove that he exists, however. Thus the default position should be not to believe in him.
Religion is a problem for those who are hurt or affected by it in a negative way. But because no one in the majority of the world is hurt or affected by religion. then it is not a matter you need to concern yourself with.
I'll just refer you to point 7 in the list below.
The bible is false, i have explained this before. the god of the bible and the real god are very different. we should not base our morals or ethics on any book or god. we should base them on how we would want to be treated. the golden rule etc.
I completely agree, that is the reason why religion needs to be criticized.
You are free to criticize anyone or anything. the U.S Government took an issue with slavery, not the american people. The reason the government took an issue with slavery was because they wanted to deport the slaves back to africa. not because they wanted to "free" them. the unindustrialized southern farmers had a problem with this. they had already paid for there "propperty" and it would leave them without farm hands or workers. so the american civil war happened.
I don't know what you're trying to say with the slave story.
You said you are replying to our comments, yet I have not found any of the seven points I made in my last post to be addressed. I will put the seven comments below again, please reply to them with the numbers so I can see you are actually addressing them.
1. You said you met god and that you have evidence for his existence. Please provide said evidence as you might save us from eternal suffering in hell. (if you can't, well, you should probably stop mentioning it)
2. It is impossible to disprove god's existence, granted. But the same goes for anything else. I can not disprove the flying spaghetti monster or dragons on earth. This does not mean it is reasonable to believe in such things. Because it is impossible to disprove, the correct position is to deny that something exists until evidence is provided in order to be able to distinguish fact from fiction.
3. The universe does not need to have a creator, thus the question 'who made it' does not have to be answered.
4. It is impossible for it to be impossible that something comes from nothing. After all, if there was a god, he would have had to come from nothing too.
5. What makes it immature to make a youtube channel and having 'public demonstrations' against religion?
6. You accuse us of bestowing hatred upon people. Sure there are some atheists that do, but it is straight up discriminatory to assume all atheists do.
7. If religion is false, it is most definitely a problem. It is important to act by rational thought, rather than what you think some supernatural being would do. Yet the US President swears to a bible.
The bible has some very crooked morals, as VeganAtheist demonstrates in his crazy bible verses series. Even if you're not basing your moral system on the bible, to base it on a being that would have people suffer eternally simply for being born in the wrong culture (e.g. a Hinduistic culture) is plain wrong. I think we should be adults, and not base our morals on fairy tales.
To attack religious people personally is not necessary, but to criticize their belief is. You're going to offend people, but that is sometimes necessary. Slave owners would probably have been offended when told having slaves is wrong, does that make the movement against slavery a bad thing?
