Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qmcOG-na4E
In several years of debating atheism
Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qmcOG-na4E
In several years of debating atheism and theism, I have made an observation. Ask any believer what would convince him he was mistaken and persuade him to leave his religion and become an atheist, and if you get a response, it will almost invariably be, "Nothing - I have faith in my god." Although such people may well exist, I personally have yet to meet a theist who would acknowledge even the possibility that his belief was in error. Many theists, by their own admission, structure their beliefs so that no evidence could possibly disprove them. In short, they are closed-minded, and have been taught to be closed-minded.
In light of this, it is ironic that atheists are often accused of being the closed-minded ones. Fundamentalist very frequently claim that we have hardened hearts, we are dogmatic and irrational, and that we reject God based on preconceived bias. Such claims result from psychological projection. Incapable of coping with the fact that there are some people who genuinely do not believe in their god, these theists simply deny that such people exist, and instead insist that everyone thinks the same way they do. Therefore, people who reach different conclusions than them must have some secret ulterior motive for not believing. This is truly ridiculous, but unfortunately, some people really believe it.
Thus, in the spirit of proving that the atheist's mind is not closed, I've assembled a list of what I would accept as proof that a given religion is true. Also included are things that I would accept as circumstantial evidence of a particular religion's truth and things that would not be acceptable to me as proof of anything. While I do not claim to speak for all atheists, I would confidently say that any religion that could produce one of the things from the first list would probably gain a great number of converts.
To be fair, I invite all theists to respond by preparing a list of things that they would accept as proof that atheism is true. If any theist prepares such a list please post it.
The first category deals with things that would absolutely convince me of the truth of a particular religion. If shown any of these, I would convert on the spot.
Verified, specific prophecies that could not have been contrived.
If the prophecy is vague, unclear or garbled (like Nostradamus' ramblings, for example). It must be detailed, specific and unambiguous in its prediction and wording.
If the prophecy is trivial, anyone could predict that it will be cold next winter, or that this drought/plague/flood will eventually subside. The prophecy must predict something surprising, unlikely or unique.
If the prophecy is obviously contrived for other reasons, No official seer or court astrologer ever predicted that the king he worked for would be a brutal, evil tyrant who would ruin the country.
If the prophecy is self-fulfilling; i.e., if the mere fact of the prophecy's existence could cause people to make it come true, The Jewish people returned to their homeland in Israel just as the Bible said they would, but this isn't a genuine prediction - they did it because the Bible said they would. The predicted event can't be one that people could stage.
If the prophecy predicts an event that already happened and the writing of the prophecy itself can't be shown to have preceded the event.
If the prophecy predicts an event that already happened and the happening of that event can't be verified by independent evidence. For example, Christian apologists claim that Jesus fulfilled many Old Testament prophecies, but the authors of the New Testament obviously had access to those prophecies also; what would have prevented them from writing their story to conform to them? The extra-biblical evidence for the existence of Jesus is so scanty that it is impossible to disprove such a proposal.
And finally, if the prophecy is the lone success among a thousand failures, anyone can throw prophecies against a wall until one sticks. The book or other source from which it comes must have at least a decently good record on other predictions.
These conditions, are reasonable, and are only what would be expected of a true prophet with a genuine gift.
Scientific knowledge in holy books that was not available at the time.
(more)
(less)
Added: 1 year ago
Views: 360,630
Some argue that religious life is the best way to live. They claim life without a god is s
Some argue that religious life is the best way to live. They claim life without a god is sad and depressing. Statements like "I could not imagine my life without God", and "My life would be meaningless without God", are common defenses for a religious life. The following is a list of advantages atheists enjoy over a religious life. I invite the religious viewers to submit a response video with the advantages of a religious life.
1. Atheists can make moral decisions based on the specific context. Having absolutes like "Though Shall not Lie" stops people from thinking for themselves and making the right decision based on the situation at hand. In what situation would be okay to lie? Most religious people would say, never. Atheists would disagree. For example: If you were living in Germany hiding Jews in your attic during the holocaust, and Hitler's Nazis knocked on your door and asked if you were hiding Jews, would it be okay to lie to save the lives of the Jews in your attic? I believe trying to save their lives would the moral and proper choice. Atheists have the power to do what's right for all humanity, rather than the forced perspective of doing what is right for a god.
2. Atheists can experience healthy outrage at the outrageous without fear of questioning God's plan. We can be outraged when a friend dies of a horrible disease, or is killed in a car accident. It is okay to be upset at disasters and horrible events. It is not a part of any plan. It is just a horrible event. Atheists try to learn from them and not just chalk it up to God's Plan. We use science to understand catastrophic events like hurricanes, and tsunamis. This gives us the ability to save lives. If we think a magical plan is going to happen no matter what, then why try to stop the events or make things better. Atheists do not wonder if a god is punishing us. Yes, there is cause and effect, and our actions effect how we live, you should save for retirement, and if your diet is bad you'll end up fat, or sick, or both. But if an airplane part falls on your house, it is an accident. If you find a 5 dollar bill on the sidewalk, it is an accident. No magical intervention, no magical wrath, these are just accidents. Life has an element of chance. This may not seem comforting, but here is another way to look at it: Your loved one dies in a completely random car accident where nobody could possibly be blamed. Is it more comforting to know the accident happened because of bad luck or is better to think the accident could have been prevented by an omnipotent being that could have stepped in and saved them from an untimely death, but your god decided to just let them die? You don't have to be frustrated thinking "Was it because I didn't pray enough?" "Was God mad at me or them?" "Maybe I should have prayed more." Atheist take comfort in knowing there is no plan.
3. Atheist can be friends with everyone without having the thought in the back of their mind that this person's lifestyle may be evil. You have the power to accept people for what they are. Enabling you to enjoy their quirks rather than chastise them for being unique. Atheists can have relationships with people who have alternative lifestyles without feeling like they have to save them from some deity that is going to condemn them for being themselves. After all, if there was a creator, then he has made everyone the way they are. Atheists don't fear that a large part of the earth's population is going to hell for being true to themselves.
5. Atheists do not live with the fear of hell. This is one of the hardest things for religious people to shake and one of the best rewards. Religious people love the thought of heaven, but fear hell as a consequence. In order to lose the fear of hell, you have to let go of the false hope of heaven. Atheists have done both.
7. Atheists raise freethinking children; let them pick a religion, or none. What would you have picked? This is hard for parents. If a child wanted to be another religion, or even atheist, it would be devastating to most religious parents. Why not teach them about all religions and tell them why you believe the one you do, and then let them choose? Atheists do not force atheism on their children. We simple let them see the evidence for and against religion and let them make up there own mind. They may change there mind several times. This is okay. Atheists love their children no matter what belief they are drawn too. That is the beauty of free thinking. You can raise your children according to your values without feeling as though you have to defend Bible stories that even a child can see are fiction.
(more)
(less)
Added: 1 year ago
Views: 443,099
You are not agnostic
Some people claim to be agnostic instead of atheist because they be
You are not agnostic
Some people claim to be agnostic instead of atheist because they believe it is a less severe view of the disbelief of a God. They are mistaken in their understanding of the term Agnostic. It is not a step down to a softer form of atheism. Agnosticism and atheism are two completely separate categories of belief.
The definition of agnostic is:"a person who believes that the existence of the ultimate cause, or God, is unknowable." This does not mean the person believes there is a god. Nor does it mean the person believes there is not a god. It is only referring the knowledge about a god.
The definition of atheist is:" a person who disbelieves the existence of a supreme being. " This is referring directly to the belief that a god exist or not. It is not referring to the knowledge about a god or whether that knowledge is knowable.
A person can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. That's right, you can believe in a god while simultaneously believing that the knowledge of the god you believe is unknowable. You can believe there is no god while simultaneously believing that there might be a god, but the knowledge is unknowable.
How do you determine if you are atheist? That's easy, just determine whether you believe in a god or not. It is okay to say "I don't know", but that is not the question. We don't know if unicorns, leprechauns, or big foot really exist either. But you could still believe they do exist without knowing for sure. The question is, do you believe, regardless of your knowledge. If you say you don't know, then you probably fall in to the category of atheist. Think about all of the other claims people make about magical creatures. You can say I don't know if all those things exist, but it is pretty obvious that you don't believe in them. You don't need knowledge about each crazy claim to know you don't believe in something.
How do you determine if you are agnostic? This is referring directly to the knowledge of a god. Do you believe the knowledge of god is unknowable? That seems to be a severe claim. Man has had many new advances in knowledge in last centuries that we could have never imagined. In light of this it seems a far stretch to think any knowledge is eternally unknowable. How can we claim that any knowledge we don't posses today will never be discovered? Do you really believe this?
So ask yourself these questions and determine which category you fall into. You may be surprised. Whether you are agnostic or not, you can be theist or atheist. Where do you see yourself now?
(more)
(less)
Added: 2 months ago
Views: 14,178
|
http://www.strike-the-root.com/71/molyneux/molyneux1.html
Existence is a relatively sim
http://www.strike-the-root.com/71/molyneux/molyneux1.html
Existence is a relatively simple concept -- it is defined as that which consists of either matter or energy. Therefore if a god exists, it must be composed of either matter or energy.
The opposite must also be true. If a god is not composed of matter or energy, then that god, by definition, does not exist. Thus to argue that a god exist, despite a total absence of matter or energy, is to argue, existence equals non-existence, which is a complete contradiction.
If a god exists, then physical evidence is really the only methodology by which we can ascertain that a god exists. Of course, this does not require direct physical evidence -- we cannot perceive black holes directly, but we know that they exist due to the effects of their gravity wells on surrounding matter, as well as the flashes of energy that are released as captured matter crosses the event horizon. But since "existence" is defined as that which is composed of matter or energy, the proof of existence must be some evidence of that matter or energy.
Evidence is defined as that which impacts our physical senses in some manner, either directly, or through some translating device such as a spectrograph or an oscilloscope. Since our sensory organs are designed to perceive the effects of matter and energy, it is through the evidence of the senses that we can determine the existence or nonexistence of things.
If I argue that something exists, but then claim there is no way to detect it, my argument contradicts itself. Let's say I tell a deaf man that I hear a deep, loud sound coming from a speaker. If he lays his hand on it and feels no vibrations, he has every right to be skeptical. If I say that this loud sound does not have vibrations, he may then pull out his trusty microphone or other sound wave detector. If this instrument detects no sound in the vicinity, can I still tell him that this loud sound is occurring? At some point, if my definition of "loud sound" basically boils down to "that which is the opposite of any evidence that a loud sound is occurring," then clearly my approach to truth needs a little work.
This approach helps clarify the truth value of the proposition that a god does not exist. If a god exists, then sensual evidence of some sort is required to determine the existence of that god. If a god is not made up of matter or energy, then that god does not exist, since that which is not composed of matter or energy -- does not exist. If a god is made up of matter and energy, then it is subject to physical laws. Since it is bound by physical laws, miracles are impossible, because miracles are, by definition, violations of physical laws. Likewise, a god cannot be all knowing and all-powerful, since both attributes would violate the basic tenets of physical laws. All knowing would require instantaneous knowledge of all matter, past, present and future, which is clearly impossible, while all powerful would require the ability to break the bounds of physical laws, which brings us back to the realm of nonexistence.
If a god is subject to physical laws, then praying to a god makes about as much sense as worshiping a black hole, begging the Sun to grant you favors, or circumcising your son to appease the moon. If a god is not subject to physical laws, then the concept of a god is synonymous with the concept of non-existence.
Why is there such resistance to the fact that a god does not exist? Many people redefine "God" within their own minds as "a potential form of matter or energy that has not been discovered yet," or "that which could exist in an alternate universe," or something to that effect.
However, either a criterion for determining truth exists, or it does not. If such a criterion exists, then it must be objective, and based on the evidence of the senses and reason, which precludes the existence of any deities. If no such criterion exists, then both everything and nothing is true, and agnosticism, atheism, superstition, religion and the belief of the flying spaghetti monster are all equally valid.
If an objective criterion for truth exists, then it cannot logically be applied according to whim, or only in situations that feel emotionally comfortable. Through this logical method we can determine no god exists.
Actions are more important than beliefs.
(more)
(less)
Added: 1 year ago
Views: 125,970
Creationists are the ultimate skeptics
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanId=sa013&art
Creationists are the ultimate skeptics
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanId=sa013&articleId=000D 4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&modsrc=most_popular
http://saintgasoline.com/2007/04/01/if-creationists-held-the ir-religion-to-the-same-unreasonable-standards-they-set-for- evolution/
Creationists are the ultimate skeptics. They will believe in men being raised from the dead and talking ghosts that can impregnate virgins without even a shred of evidence, but when confronted with the evidence for biological evolution they transform into staunch critics upholding the highest burdens of proof ever constructed.
The theory of evolution is actually supported with a wide array of evidence. Evolution is right up there with basic principles of elementary physics in terms of observational support. In the face of such overwhelming evidence, critics adopt standards of such unreasonableness that virtually nothing could be considered true if we applied such standards across all areas of inquiry and knowledge. The creationist's argument is based on selectively raising standards. If other proposed ideas were supported by evidence to the degree that biological evolution is, creationists would certainly not doubt these ideas, for example, the theory of gravity and the atomic theory. However, the theory of evolution is fair game for doubt, because creationists selectively demand implausible degrees of evidence for its truth, and won't accept anything less.
Notice how these facts could only truly be considered criticisms of evolutionary theory if we expected complete and total mathematical proof for biological evolution. The problem, of course, is that empirical sciences do not deal with formal proofs of absolute certainty, and must instead rely on evidence and probability, like much of our every day knowledge.
In normal scenarios, creationists do not have such high standards of proof. If, for instance, they found a half-eaten deer carcass surrounded by wolf paw prints, the reasonable conclusion is that the wolves ate the deer. If subsequently they found wolves near by, covered in deer blood, and analyzed the vomit of one wolf and found that it contained deer meat that would be further evidence in support of the rather obvious conclusion that wolves ate the deer in question.
Now, if some wolf-loving skeptic wanted to protect the wolves from this charge of murder, he could adopt the creationist strategy and utilize unreasonably high standards of proof to shield him from criticism. He could argue, for instance, that because no one "observed" the wolves eating the deer, we could doubt the conclusion.
For this skeptic, all the evidence pointing towards the wolves means nothing to him if we cannot directly observe the event in question. He could also remark that the wolf theory leaves out certain details. For instance, it doesn't tell us exactly how many wolves were involved, or whether the wolves first attacked from the right or left side, or whether the deer happened to be looking down at its feet when the attack occurred. They could argue that deer are faster than wolves so it is impossible. The skeptic could argue that these "gaps" in the theory rule out the wolf hypothesis.
Of course, any reasonable person can see that the wolf skeptic sets his standards of proof way too high. We need not directly observe the event, nor explain every trite and inane detail in order to know that the wolves did indeed eat the deer. The evidence of the eaten deer carcass, the wolf paw prints, and blood spattered wolves, the deer meat in the vomit, and so on, all show without a doubt that the deer was eaten by the wolves.
Creationists use almost the exact same sorts of arguments against evolution. When they argue that huge biological changes resulting from evolution have never been observed, they do not realize that scientists need not directly observe single-celled organisms becoming primates in order to reasonably conclude that such an event occurred, just as those who believe that the wolves ate the deer need not directly observe the event to know that it truly happened, given the abundance of evidence supporting the claim.
(more)
(less)
Added: 1 year ago
Views: 36,890
What is freewill? The American Heritage dictionary defines freewill as: Done of one's own
What is freewill? The American Heritage dictionary defines freewill as: Done of one's own accord or voluntary. Freewill basically means you have a choice.
What is a Miracle? The American Heritage dictionary defines a miracle as: An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God.
Do miracles take away freewill? If you were to see someone turn water into wine, would you believe they had magical powers? Would you have a choice? Does just seeing the act take away your freewill to choose what you believe? If a man showed you holes in his hands, and claimed he was crucified, does this automatically make you a believer, or can you still choose not to believe he was crucified? You still have the ability to ask questions and search for more evidence.
The obvious answer is that miracles do not take away freewill. We are able to continue making choices unless someone or something takes away our freewill. Losing freewill could be done by some sort of mind control, or physical force.
If a god appeared to the world and performed miracles that every person could see, and told everyone to bow down and worship him, everyone would still have freewill and the ability to say no. The miracles do not take away freewill. They are simply evidence of the power of that god or of some deception. For our freewill to be taken, the god would have to use some sort of mind control that would cause people to lose the ability to choose, or force us physically to bow down.
An argument could be made that seeing the god is taking away our freewill to believe in its existence. This argument makes a little sense but, seeing the god does not take away the choice between worshiping the god, and disregarding it. We could still make decisions, based on freewill as to whether or not we think the god is good, evil, or fake. We could still choose not to worship it.
A common argument used by religious people is "God can not appear before us. If he did, that would take away our freewill to believe in him." But belief in a god does not make you one of his sheep. It is obedience to that god, following its commands, and worshiping that god. Belief that the god exist does not automatically make you a part of the special "in crowd" nor does it get you a place in paradise, 72 virgins, reincarnation, or whatever superstitious afterlife that god promises.
So why would a god, that supposedly loves everyone, not appear to us and show some undeniable miracles to help people convert? We know that his appearance and miracles would not take away freewill. We would still be free to not worship. A loving god would do whatever he could to save his children from hell, even if it included appearing and showing miracles daily.
Believing in a god based on no evidence and then claiming the lack of evidence is because more evidence would take away freewill is simply not true. No evidence exists because there is no god and no hell. Take peace in knowing you don't have to live your life with the false hope of heaven and the fear of hell.
(more)
(less)
Added: 1 year ago
Views: 73,652
|
As an Atheist and a former Christian, I am frequently confronted by Christians claiming th
As an Atheist and a former Christian, I am frequently confronted by Christians claiming that Jesus was real and I should believe in him again. These Christians fail to realize that I do believe Jesus existed. I believe he may have been crucified. I do not believe he rose from the dead. If Jesus existed then there are a few possibilities. He was either, the actual son of God, a con artist, a mentally deranged man, or a normal man that had embellished stories written about him after his death. We can examine evidence to determine which of these is most likely.
For those who are not sure he existed, there are several people that have written about the existence of Jesus outside of the Bible. Cornelius Tacitus in 55 AD wrote that Christ suffered at the hands of Pontius Pilate. This is an example of a non biblical writer recording the existence of Jesus. There are several others. These writings make a strong argument for the existence of Jesus. But did Jesus have powers?
In the past few decades several people have claimed to be God or a messenger from God. But in today's society these people are seen as con artist or delusional. There are a few who fall under the spell of deception and believe these people really have some magical powers or believe they are God, but the rest of us are not fooled. We know these people are not special and have no magical powers.
We see their followers in highly emotional states claiming their new friend is the messiah, and we know they have been deceived or brainwashed. David Koresh made claims like this and had many people believing his deceit. Now he is dead, but there are still people who believe he was God. Yes, there are a few Branch Davidians still around. If his followers pass these beliefs onto their children and friends, in the future they may become just as numerous as the followers or other religions. Why is this any different than Mohamed, Joseph Smith, Marshall Applewhite, Jim Jones, or Jesus?
We can clearly see that people that make these ludicrous claims today are not magical. Why is it any different when the story is passed down for thousands of years? Does the passage of time make the story more valid? Not one shred of evidence was left by any of Jesus' alleged miracles. Due to the lack of evidence and the sheer ridiculous nature of the stories I do not believe Jesus had any magical powers and was not the son of any God. So was Jesus a con artist?
At the time of Jesus' life, knowledge about the world was only a fraction of what it is today. This advance is not just in science. People now question things that sound either too good to be true or not realistic. This type of questioning mind is far more advanced than primitive man. We know today that if a man is seen walking on water it is just a trick. If we see someone claiming to bend spoons with there mind, they are simple using slight of hand. No magical powers are needed to perform these deceptions.
I am not claiming everyone today is a skeptic. Unfortunately we still have people today who believe in ESP, psychics, ghost, UFOs, Bigfoot, Unicorns, Dragons, and faith healers. These are the same people that would most likely believe someone claiming to be a messiah.
Would it have been easier to fool people in the first century? Imagine, if Houdini had time traveled back to the first century and performed his illusions for hundreds of people and also claimed to be the son of God. Then today we would likely have millions of Houdini churches, with all the followers worshiping the magician.
So was Jesus a con artist like Peter Popoff or Uri Gellar? Or did he really believe he had powers. Most magicians and physics are trying to make money with their tricks. According to the outside biblical references to Jesus, he seemed to be humble man and not very wealthy. Therefore I do not believe he was knowingly trying to deceive people for material gain. He did not seem to gain any wealth or social status with his claims. So, was Jesus delusional?
If Jesus really believed he was the son of God and believed he possessed magical powers, he was delusional. This seems likely because Jesus was willing to die for his beliefs. Although being willing to die for a belief does not make the belief true. The Branch Davidians were willing to burn alive in the Waco compound for their delusion, and Muslims are certainly willing to blow themselves up for their beliefs. But dieing for a belief is the ultimate sacrifice. It shows a true commitment and shows the person truly does believe their claims. If any charlatan today was threatened with their life because of their alleged powers, they would most likely admit to the scam to save them self. Jesus was never recorded denouncing him claims. But were the stories about his teachings accurate?
(more)
(less)
Added: 6 months ago
Views: 19,628
I am an atheist and a former Christian. As a former Christian I look back to what I used t
I am an atheist and a former Christian. As a former Christian I look back to what I used to believe. I wonder how I could have been no naive.
As a Christians I had very little knowledge about evolutionary biology, physics, geology, and chemistry. Yet I argued about evolution, fossils, and radioactive dating. I claimed to know problems that scientists just happen to miss when developing these thoroughly tested methods. These supposed flaws were pointed out to me by other Christians. Now I have read several books on each of these subjects and understand more than I thought I ever would. I know now that scientist have accounted for these supposed flaws.
As a Christians I vigorously denied the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but I was irritated when someone denied the existence of my God. I had an emotional attachment to my belief. My beliefs are now based on logic and reasoning and not emotional feelings.
As a Christians I felt insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists said that humans evolved from other life forms, but I had no problem with the Biblical claim that people were created from dirt. I ignored the evidence from millions of scientific tests that pointed to a different theory. Now I study these scientific findings with an open mind.
As a Christians I laughed at polytheists, but I had no problem believing in the father, son, and Holy Spirit that are separate yet the same. To me a trinity made more sense that multiple gods. Now I don't believe in any gods.
As a Christians I got upset when I heard of the violence attributed to Islam, or any other religion, but not when the bloodshed was committed by my God. I made excuses for my God. For Example: the slaughtering all the Egyptian babies in Exodus and the genocide performed in "Joshua" including women, children, animals and trees. I also claimed that my God was loving and kind.
As a Christians I thought Hindu beliefs that deify humans were just silly. I believed Greek claims about gods sleeping with women were absurd. Yet I had no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then flew up into the sky. I realize now that the difference between these beliefs is minuscule. One is just as silly as the next.
As a Christians I was willing to spend my life looking for loopholes in the scientifically established age of the Earth, which is a few billion years, but I found nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing the age of the Earth.
As a Christians I believed that the entire population of this planet, with the exception of those who shared my beliefs, would spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And I considered my religion "tolerant" and "loving." I am free of the fear of hell now.
As a Christians I ignored the textual scholars that showed evidence that the Bible was not a reliable source. However an emotional person rolling around on the floor screaming gibberish was all the evidence I needed. I know now it was just plain nonsense.
As a Christians I thought that the double blind studies showing prayer completely ineffective were diversions from Satan. I believed the unanswered prayers were simply God saying "No." I ignored the fact that praying to any god produced the same results. I also ignored the fact that if my god was the one true god, my prayers would be answered more often than other religions which would cause a statistical anomaly that could be measured. I don't waste my time praying now.
As a Christians I actually knew little more about my religion than what I heard in church. I did not study the history of Christianity, the early church, how the bible was written, what books were left out of the bible, the mistranslations from the original Hebrew, and the atrocities committed in the name of Christianity. This knowledge was not needed to be a Christian. Studying all of these items and actually reading the entire bible helped me see the truth.
I am happy I do not believe in superstitions anymore. I believe actions are more important that beliefs.
http://www.evilbible.com/Top_Ten_List.htm
(more)
(less)
Added: 1 year ago
Views: 43,455
Questions for God
If you knew that your future child was going to be sent to hell, wou
Questions for God
If you knew that your future child was going to be sent to hell, would you still conceive the child?
Why would a god create a person knowing he is going to hell? Isn't that sadistic?
For Parents, could you send your kids to hell, even for just a little while, to suffer in agony? Could you send them there for eternity? If not, isn't your love stronger than any god that would?
If a god knew that appearing to the world would save millions from going to hell, wouldn't it be immoral to hide? Wouldn't you do anything possible to save someone you love from hell? Why wouldn't a god, that claims to love us, do everything possible to save us?
One of the definitions for love is "affectionate concern for the well-being of others." If a god is not willing to save a person from hell, doesn't that mean the god does not love the person?
Is it moral to punish someone for their parent's actions? Should you be charged with murder if your father murdered someone? How about your grandfather, great-grandfather? Is a god immoral if he does punish someone for others crimes? Should we worship something that is clearly immoral?
Actions are more important than beliefs.
(more)
(less)
Added: 1 year ago
Views: 13,307
|
|
See All 20 Videos
|
