₦airaland Forum

Bishopkingsley, going by your comment that energy has always existed. You have agreed that the universe has always existed and doesn’t have a beginning if we should go by the equation E=mc^2
That’s the mathematical presentation of theory of relativity.

It implies that everything is made of energy and energy is directly proportional to mass with speed of light as constant.

It means all masses include those particles in living things have always exist in one form or the other. This also obey the law or conservation of energy to the fullest and the universe as we know today is 100% energy.

I think you should get your pionts straight or probably get some basic concept of science first.

Bishopkingsley:
Because I already told you no one can create God and that both the flying spaghetti and my God when you combine the two you will still have one God which is the ultimate and he is called God because no one can create him he is the total infinite complexity

it means that anyone can wake up at any point to create his own god just as we created the Flying Spaghetti Monster, these gods are equally as a valid as the Christian god. It also means that there no logical basis to place the Christian god above any other god. They are equally valid. Noted

Hope that settles it

Which law are you talking about



You are going in a circle because I told you that when you add all the who created who you will get a complexity infinite brain

How many times will I say it... I told you let both of us agree to call that infinite complexity total brain let call it God

Its your rule that you created, it’s not a universally accepted rule and I don’t have to play by it.
There’s an argument that if god cannot be created then the universe can also not be created.

Why are you not understanding it

The Law is showing that the reaction to all actions is an infinite value which has no end

And I told you let both of us agree that that infinite value can be called God

I do not agree that the infinite value can be called god. You are person not understanding my argument and misconstruing the Newton’s 3rd law of motion.

What the law implies is that if you add a force to a body, it body reacts equally but in opposite direction. For example, if you hit a ball, the force applied to that ball determines the speed of that ball in an opposite direction. Another example of this law can be seen in accidents, the more the force of collision, the more the impact and damage that will be caused.

I do not see how this laws ratifies existence of a god. You do not understand the nitty gritty of the law itself. Maybe you need some basic physics education

This statement shows you are confused with it application



Every one can see how the earth floats on nothing....

this is another lack of physics knowledge, earth doesn’t float on nothing. Earth floats on the fabrics of space-time continuum as stated by the Albert Einstein theory or relativity. It is kept in orbit by the gravity created by the sun that bends space-time. It’s basic physics and you need to get.

As long as they happen on this one's it is enough proof
Greenflies, stick insects, aphids, water fleas, scorpions, termites and honey bees are all capable of reproducing without males, using parthenogenesis.....

mammals don’t express the gene for parthenogenesis. Basic biology, parthenogenesis cannot happen in mammals which include humans.

The story is not the focus the focus is on

This law

To every action there is equal and opposite reaction..

I still do not see how this ratifies the existence of god. It doesn’t correlate because you don’t know basic physics, you are mopping everything up.

Which actually shows the existence of God



Conservation law of energy is actually saying there has always been energy

This gives credence to the fact that the universe can always existed without a creator, if there has always been energy.

That exactly what Bible is saying there has always been God

The Bible never said anything about thermodynamics.

The scientific research to the Law says energy has always been that it has never been created instead of formulating your own assumptions to the law why not ask me if the law means there have always been energy

Energy has always existed and clearly not created by any god, that’s what we know. Thanks for that

Because that what that law is saying




We know because the brain what continues to cause each reaction to everything is called God

So for you to sit down and say you don't know means you are not following the scientific laws

Because the law from science already say energy power is never created

So Ask yourself do I follow science or follow my own limited brain

If we follow science then we must accept energy is truly never created and that using spiritual terminology we can call that energy God

The same brain said earth was flat few years ago, we didn’t know a lot of stuffs before but now we know more than before.
It’s irrational to say that you know when you don’t know. We don’t know, let us find out, your god is not the answer. It was never the answers for things we didn’t know that we know today.

Your case is filling the gaps with god, it doesn’t solve any problem. Its why science don’t take that as an answer

Bishopkingsley:
I already told you that if you accept that he created my God then fine you must call the flying spaghetti monster... God.... And I told you no one can create God because he is the total infinite complexity...

We have settled this issue and you keep thinking that I will say no to your defense I won't say no all I want you to accept is to call that flying thing God...

I told you the highest brain behind all reactions is called God



If you say I reached a flaw conclusion
Then answer this simple question

Question 1
Every one believes... To every action there is equal and opposite reaction.... This is pure science and Bible also support this theory......
..... So this theory cancels the theory that... The creation spin of you mention which you said spin off by itself..... If you insist that it spin of by itself...
..... Then Do you believe that the kings poem wrote itself?




Your problem is inability to stay in the agreed principle I already told you that when you sum it up all up what you will get is continuous infinite complexity.... And I told you let us add all the infinite total complexity together and call it God

Because God definitions actually means a being with infinite brain....



It can be tested because scientists said nothing happens by itself.... They discovered that to every action there is equal and opposite reaction..

We tested it with this

This is a universal law so
It states , Newton's third law is: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The statement means that in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. ... Forces always come in pairs - equal and opposite action-reaction force pairs.



Now religious laws are perfect it just that people use other words and terminology while we use spiritual terminology

Examples
Science says
Electrical power is neither created or destroyed..... Bible gives the impression God can neither be created or destroyed


Which is exactly the same thing as

Law of Conservation of Energy
The first law of thermodynamics, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; energy can only be transferred or changed from one form to another. For example, turning on a light would seem to produce energy; however, it is electrical energy that is converted.


You can see this two laws are consistent and proves the existence of God

Bible shows God is power and power is energy and this shows both Bible and science are saying the same thing

The best answer we have now is “we don’t know”

There’s no shame is saying that.

Don’t fill the gaps with your god. No one will take that seriously in future.

Bishopkingsley:
I already told you that if you accept that he created my God then fine you must call the flying spaghetti monster... God.... And I told you no one can create God because he is the total infinite complexity...

We have settled this issue and you keep thinking that I will say no to your defense I won't say no all I want you to accept is to call that flying thing God...

I told you the highest brain behind all reactions is called God



If you say I reached a flaw conclusion
Then answer this simple question

This brings us to the question as to why you are not serving the Flying Spaghetti Monster if you agree that he created your god.

Question 1
Every one believes... To every action there is equal and opposite reaction.... This is pure science and Bible also support this theory......
..... So this theory cancels the theory that... The creation spin of you mention which you said spin off by itself..... If you insist that it spin of by itself...
..... Then Do you believe that the kings poem wrote itself?

its not a theory by the way, it’s a law and that law applies to everything including the creation of your god unless you want to special plead.
There’s no shame in saying you don’t know yet but we will find our instead of filling the gap with your god.

Your problem is inability to stay in the agreed principle I already told you that when you sum it up all up what you will get is continuous infinite complexity.... And I told you let us add all the infinite total complexity together and call it God

Because God definitions actually means a being with infinite brain....

my problem with you argument is that you want to make the rules and then choose when the rules don’t apply.
Your rule is everything must have to be created but you want to exempt your god from the rule. You don’t want to also acknowledge the fact that if your god can be exempted then the universe can also be exempted.

It can be tested because scientists said nothing happens by itself.... They discovered that to every action there is equal and opposite reaction..

We tested it with this

scientists are not suppose to help you find your god. You make the claims, you will provide the evidence.
Your god disobeys that law of motion since you claim he cannot be created himself. That law is disobeyed in that instance.
Where did he get the momentum to create the universe if that law is true?unless you want to special plead again that it doesn’t apply to him.

This is a universal law so
It states , Newton's third law is: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The statement means that in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. ... Forces always come in pairs - equal and opposite action-reaction force pairs.

If your god is to be included in this law, then it’s flawed because a god that cannot be created cannot obey the law of motion.

Now religious laws are perfect it just that people use other words and terminology while we use spiritual terminology

Examples
Science says
Electrical power is neither created or destroyed..... Bible gives the impression God can neither be created or destroyed

religious laws are always imperfect, that explains why we have never seen a massive object with more volume than water float like Jesus did. It’s also the same reason there’s no evidence that a kangaroo hopped from Australia or a Penguin from Antarctica joined an ark that housed all terrestrial species for a year. There’s nothing perfect about those nonsense stories. We have never observed parthenogenesis in mammals like the birth of Jesus.
Those things cannot be called perfect, they myths and fictions.

Which is exactly the same thing as

Law of Conservation of Energy
The first law of thermodynamics, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; energy can only be transferred or changed from one form to another. For example, turning on a light would seem to produce energy; however, it is electrical energy that is converted.


You can see this two laws are consistent and proves the existence of God

Bible shows God is power and power is energy and this shows both Bible and science are saying the same thing

If energy can never be created nor destroyed then where did god get the initial Energy to create the universe?

The existence of a god that wasn’t created itself contradicts that law of conservation of energy, his own energy must have come from elsewhere. It creates another problem of infinite regress. If you say that he was created from nothing and that defies the law of conservation of energy.

Nothing you have said is in line with science, you are simply distorting facts to match your narratives

Bishopkingsley:
I already told you that the sum or total of the complexity is infinite and since it infinite... The brain behind it continues which we call the total infinite value.... God... Now that explains the below...
Question you asked about how.... How do you handle that line of reasoning.....



Now I have explained the above to you as the total complexity value which according to mathematics tends to infinity and I said the total is called God



Deism refers to what can be called natural religion, the acceptance of a certain body of religious knowledge that is inborn in every person or that can be acquired by the use of reason and the rejection of religious knowledge......... You and I know that deism does not explain that total infinite complexity
Principles we talked about earlier so in order words deism is under the theory of the God we are summing up

Now any religion that fails to acknowledge the total infinite complexity is under the God of the total infinite complexity.....this now shows that nature can't be the real God.





Now the reason I can't acknowledge that is because all other religions their God falls under this God that we summed up his total infinite complexity.......



All religions agree that there is a point that you get to which shows there is a God that is called the highest so we don't need to treat all strand by strand since
There is no other God greater than the total infinite complexity.........



Let me retrace my steps now I provided you with the evidence that he created the earth

You told me how the earth was created and I told you he is the infinite complexity total...
So there is nothing to test since everyone believe that... To every action there is equal and opposite reaction......

And I told you that the opposite reaction that caused the spin of was God... You and I agree that it is infinite and I still told you that the total is equally called God

So I have given you an evidence and you and I have agreed to call the total infinite complexity.. God



I told you that creation of earth is one evidence... You need to pay attention to the details.... The only reason you don't like the creation of the earth to be used as evidence is because it beats your imagination and your theory




Which area is not consistent in the Bible let me clarify it to you





I told you the brothers of faith is
Seeing. Touching, hearing, feelings, etc

We can test it by looking which is seeing the creation examples the earth we live in

So we test God nature by what he created for us just like you test an electrical equipment when you buy a product from the market

If the electrical device fails you won't ever trust the manufacturer again

That is how we test the earth creation principles so we can then be able to understand how God is God

Going by your Logic then you agree with me when I say that Flying Spaghetti Monster created the Christian god?

You didn’t create any evidence that your god created the earth, you reached a flaws conclusion from appealing to ignorance that cannot be tested by any way.

Your logic could apply to anything because it cannot be tested. We can go ahead and even say that the Invisible Pink Unicorn created the Flying Spaghetti Monster and then the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the Christian god that created earth.

All including yours are mere claims that cannot be tested hence cannot be called evidence.

Religious logic are always flawed, one cannot accurately deduce a testable conclusions from them, based on assumptions and more assumptions

Bishopkingsley:
now the meaning of God actually means he is the highest and no other is above him so if you choose the flying Flying Spaghetti Monster as the highest then you must call him God and not call him Flying Spaghetti Monster....

Because only God can be God
We can't have another above him since from the complexity principles he is infinite

That's your own definition of God.
Some people think God is nature: Deism

Even within the definition of God, we have different descriptions and qualities. Your own description of a God is that of a Christian concept and we must not act inline with that. Your Christian concept is not obtainable in other religions, you have to acknowledge that.
Most concepts of God disagree, the descriptions are contradictory, if you must treat them then we have to unravel them strand by strand.


You are a proponent of a Christian God, who created everything and then sent his son to die for the redemption of our sins. He is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent according to most of your descriptions.

I have told you that you should provide a method for us to test these descriptions but you decided to talk about creation of earth which is an argumemt you cannot substantiate even going by the creation stories in the Bible which is obviously not consistent with reality. Now you don't mop-up everything by making the concept of God non-ambigious.


How can we test for the omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent nature which you ascribe to your specific God?

That's the evidence that will convince me.

Bishopkingsley:
You call it natural substances because you did not see who created it and you call the watch manufactured because you saw likely know who manufactured it but look at it from a broad perspective and consider both the same application




If a manufacturer can manufacture a watch then there must be something else that manufactured the sand and the ocean

It is as simple as abcd.
You can't place one as natural and the other as not natural because both are substance we can feel



Now let move to this concept of another complexity required to create the other complex things

What you will arrive from this principle will be a chain of complex events upon complex event which will according to mathematics will tend to infinity.........

So therefore it will have no end.... Therefore the total of the complexity to infinity will be what we call uncountable complexity..... In order words the brain behind the total complexity which tends to infinity..... Is what we call God

It is as simple as that that is why he is infinite that is why the complexity continues without an end

That is why his power continues endless and that is why he is God...

So no matter how much you add to the complex brain behind the other complex brain you will arrive at the infinite aspect of God

Your argument created the problem of infinite regress and special pleading.

You want the universe to have a creator but you do not want your God to have one. That's flawed

Doesn't work that way.

We can as well decided to create a creator for your god to make your logic valid and I have created one, he's the flying spaghetti monster and I also propose that that he's the uncaused cause. We don't need evidence to back this since you have not provided evidence to jusfity your own claim of God.

"That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"

How do you handle that line of reasoning?

Bishopkingsley:
You call it natural substances because you did not see who created it and you call the watch manufactured because you saw likely know who manufactured it but look at it from a broad perspective and consider both the same application




If a manufacturer can manufacture a watch then there must be something else that manufactured the sand and the ocean

It is as simple as abcd.
You can't place one as natural and the other as not natural



Now let move to this concept of another complexity required to create the other complex things

What you will arrive from this principle will be a chain of complex events upon complex event which will according to mathematics will tend to infinity.........

So therefore it will have no end.... Therefore the total of the complexity to infinity will be what we call uncountable complexity..... In order words the brain behind the total complexity which tends to infinity..... Is what we call God

It is as simple as that that is why he is infinite that is why the complexity continues without an end

That is why his power continues endless and that is why he is God...

So no matter how much you add to the complex brain behind the other complex brain you will arrive at the infinite aspect of God

So why must the chain of complexity end with your God?

If you God doesn't have a creator then why can't the universe not have a creator?
You cant see that you are special pleading by assuming that your own God is the only one in question. We are talking about 4,200 or more Gods and you are special pleading for your own God.

Why can't we say that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created your own God, then your God created the universe?

Bishopkingsley:
This statement below that you said is what we call the power of God working

...... the solar system was a cloud of dust and gas known as a solar nebula. Gravity collapsed the material in on itself as it began to spin,........

Now....... You said...... Gravity collapsed the material in on itself as it began to spin, forming the sun in the center of the nebula................ But it can not collapse on it self because you and I know that science does not support random occurrence without an action causing the occurrence .......

So the actual thing or the actual brain that caused those gravity to collapse the material and cause the spin off which formed the sun is what we call God

So all the process you list out is caused by an intelligent being.... Because we already know from science that nothing can spin off on it own and create another thing....

For example
If you insist that it spin off on it own..... Then..

The chance that higher life forms might have emerged by chance is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might or can assemble a Boeing 747 from materials therein.”

So Workch
Do you believe a tornado sweeping through a junk yard can assemble a Boeing 747 from material in the junk yard?

Hence you commit a fallacy of appealing to ignorance, we don't know how the dust collapse is not evidence that God did it.

It spins on its own, we haven't seen God in it.

Boeing 747 argument is from a proponent of panspermia and has nothing to do with the existence of God, religious people hold on to it without knowing the origin. It's an argument between panspermia and Abiogenesis. It has been trashed by the ultimate boeing 747 gambit by Richard Dawkins:

The assumption is that complex items need a designer. Of course, that designer “must” be god. Typically the presenter of the argument’s very specific god.

The problem lies in the god concept itself. This god is supposed to be the most complex being. If complexity is required to create complex things, then something more complex would also be required to create this god.

You can not simply exempt any version of a god from this argument. That is the definition of a logical fallacy called “special pleading”.

I would add that the watch maker’s argument (the Boeing 747 is simply a variation of that same argument) ignores just exactly how humanity normally and consistently determines manufactured versus natural surroundings. The watch on the beach stands out as created (manufactured) because this thing is NOT like the others. The sand is natural. The ocean is natural, the shells are natural. The watch is NOT natural.

This is a children’s game played by kindergarten age humans. I simply do not understand why the religious among us think this is a good argument.


Again, show us evidence that it is your God that did this without appealing to ignorance

Bishopkingsley:
Kindly tell me how was earth formed

Approximately 4.6 billion years ago, the solar system was a cloud of dust and gas known as a solar nebula. Gravity collapsed the material in on itself as it began to spin, forming the sun in the center of the nebula.

With the rise of the sun, the remaining material began to clump up. Small particles drew together, bound by the force of gravity, into larger particles. The solar wind swept away lighter elements, such as hydrogen and helium, from the closer regions, leaving only heavy, rocky materials to create smaller terrestrial worlds like Earth. But farther away, the solar winds had less impact on lighter elements, allowing them to coalesce into gas giants. In this way, asteroids, comets, planets, and moons were created.

Earth's rocky core formed first, with heavy elements colliding and binding together. Dense material sank to the center, while the lighter material created the crust. The planet's magnetic field probably formed around this time. Gravity captured some of the gases that made up the planet's early atmosphere.

Early in its evolution, Earth suffered an impact by a large body that catapulted pieces of the young planet's mantle into space. Gravity caused many of these pieces to draw together and form the moon, which took up orbit around its creator.

The flow of the mantle beneath the crust causes plate tectonics, the movement of the large plates of rock on the surface of the Earth. Collisions and friction gave rise to mountains and volcanoes, which began to spew gases into the atmosphere.

Although the population of comets and asteroids passing through the inner solar system is sparse today, they were more abundant when the planets and sun were young. Collisions from these icy bodies likely deposited much of the Earth's water on its surface. Because the planet is in the Goldilocks zone, the region where liquid water neither freezes nor evaporates but can remain as a liquid, the water remained at the surface, which many scientists think plays a key role in the development of life.

Exoplanet observations seem to confirm core accretion as the dominant formation process. Stars with more "metals" — a term astronomers use for elements other than hydrogen and helium — in their cores have more giant planets than their metal-poor cousins. According to NASA, core accretion suggests that small, rocky worlds should be more common than the more massive gas giants.

The 2005 discovery of a giant planet with a massive core orbiting the sun-like star HD 149026 is an example of an exoplanet that helped strengthen the case for core accretion.

"This is a confirmation of the core accretion theory for planet formation and evidence that planets of this kind should exist in abundance," said Greg Henry in a press release. Henry, an astronomer at Tennessee State University, Nashville, detected the dimming of the star.

In 2017, the European Space Agency plans to launch the CHaracterising ExOPlanet Satellite (CHEOPS), which will study exoplanets ranging in sizes from super-Earths to Neptune. Studying these distant worlds may help determine how planets in the solar system formed.

"In the core accretion scenario, the core of a planet must reach a critical mass before it is able to accrete gas in a runaway fashion," said the CHEOPS team.

"This critical mass depends upon many physical variables, among the most important of which is the rate of planetesimals accretion."

By studying how growing planets accrete material, CHEOPS will provide insight into how worlds grow.

Bishopkingsley:
The question I asked you is the evidence that you have been looking for

Because you already know that nothing can happen without someone or some thing making it to happen

So therefore the existence of the earth is enough prove for you to agree that there is something or someone who created it

If you say you don't accept this evidence then did the kings poem write it self

How is the existence of earth an evidence for god owing to the fact that we know How earth was formed and no god has been detected in it?

Bishopkingsley:
This statement below is wrong because you already said once you test the evidence ten times you will believe


So you have already fixed the oxymoron by yourself by saying once you test the evidence ten times you will believe



No believe Is not only faith it is a mixture of faith, seeing, feelings, touching,hearing, experience etc
In fact it involves a lot of things

That is why I said only when you probably see God that when you will believe

There are many evidence one is if you see God I know you will believe next evidence is if I give you that thing to test ten times and it works you said you will then believe

So I now gave you an example story of the rabbi and the king

Question two
Considering your a man of science and from the example the king knew that the poem can't write itself which means to every action there is another action so
Is it possible that the world simply invented it self or came into existence without an active action force?

Do you want to give me evidence or not?
I am a busy person and I don’t have time to answer a lot of questions.
I don’t think I should be taking questions because you made the positive claim of god. You should provide evidence instead of asking me questions

jesusjnr2020:
Now here's a nairalander who's been posing as an atheist, but after his cover was blown, had to admit he was a satanist.



So the next question is, what kind of Satanist is he?

The real or fake one?

Real Satanists engage in ritual killings and human sacrifices, and their family members are not spared from their mindless acts of brutality.

So perhaps he could shed more light on what he means by "i'm a satanist", and what kind of satanist he is, so we could have an idea the kind of person he really is and the threat he poses to human lives.

Any kind of satanist you want to tag me is ok.

We have been trying to educate you on it but you are thicker than brick so I don’t care.

I’m a satanist

Ebizimor7:
Tank you very much, I have contacted him he even called and prayed with my family last night

Dont listen to him. You will be scammed.
You no get sense?

Ebizimor7:
Have been married for 5 years and have known my husband for seven years now, all through this years nothing seems to be working for us, we keep going back and forth in life, his family to are all in the same level, we have done all kinds of prayers and look for solutions yet to no avail.. please if anyone knows a real prophet or alpha, imam or even a priest that can hit the nail on the head and tell us what exactly the problem is. Pls let me know tanks… pls real people only I don’t have money that some one will scam.. in between am in Delta state..

You are still in this position because you cannot seem to understand that spiritual solutions do not exist.
I’m an atheist and I had financial issues for years as well, I didn’t seek any spiritual help. I accepted responsibilities for my mistakes, tried several things. Most of them failed but one worked.

You have to step out of your spiritual mindset, it’s costing you your sense of reasoning. You know how many people have died in poverty because of the way you reason?

You need to keep brainstorming until you get it right

Bishopkingsley:
Question one
What if I gave you the evidence that you need would you believe?

Now let me explain some things while I wait for the answer to the question I asked you.....

It is often concluded: If one does not believe in God, no proof is sufficient enough except probably God appears to them personally and If one believes in God, no proof is required.

Many find God's hand everywhere in creating the highly complex structures that could not have existed without a divine creator who can do anything he wants. There is a force behind the existence of everything that exists

To prove gravity exists, the effects are seen. Similarly, God's effect on and in the world can be seen.
A parable says that a king asked a rabbi for proof of God. When the king was gone, the rabbi wrote a lovely poem on a paper and left. When the king returned, he asked the rabbi about the beautiful poem.
The rabbi denied writing it. The king was furious saying the ink was not even dry and no one else was in the room. The rabbi said, it’s the same with the world. It’s not possible that it simply invented itself or came into existence without God.

”If one doesn’t believe in god, no proof is sufficient” that’s an oxymoron that you should fix.
1. Belief means that you don’t need evidence or proof to accept it, you only need faith.
2. No one has ever presented any verifiable evidence for their god, they believe it without evidence by faith.

So if you give me an evidence that I can test 10times and it gives me the same result, I will accept that god exist.

Mind you, I need this evidence to be tested repeatedly hence 10times. To ascertain statistical significance and limit bias.

Dtruthspeaker:
Not different from your mannequin saying you do not exist!

So no point here!

This is another useless argument.
Faulty equivalence.

By your argument it implies that since mannequins have a creator then humans must have a creator then who created god?

jesusjnr2020:
It's only fools that would be living proofs of God their maker's existence, but still be looking elsewhere for evidence, when all they have to do is to look in the mirror.

We have 4,200 gods, and you want us to believe that yours created the world?
Even without evidence that any of them exist?

This is why religion presents flawed argument and is losing grounds. We cannot take nonsense as arguments, things that cannot be ratified are not arguments

Kobojunkiee:
Been a case of argument for whom?

According to God, all those who seek Him simply need to obey Him ... and He promised He will answer such a one Himself. So has the one debating the existence of God in fact submitted self to God's demands only to find Him wanting?

This argument is flawed, as this also applies to anything that doesn’t exist.
It becomes a figment if imagination that cannot be verified

I missed this but don’t expect an unflawed argument from religious people. I will be monitoring the thread though to point out the flaws

Bishopkingsley:
The love God has for you is great all you need to do is to reach towards your heart and you will hear him speaking to you

Let go of all your anger and hurt and trust him he gave you life because he wants to show you how much he loves you

Lol, there’s no evidence that god exist

Bishopkingsley:
Even if you don't respect the name

Jesus still loves you so much and wants to save you from the plans of the evil one who blinded many people from the knowledge of Christ

The flying spaghetti monster loves you too, he boiled for your sins

Bishopkingsley:
There is a name above all names

In order words there is a name greater than anything in the universe

That name is

JESUS

Are you new here?
Seems like you don’t know that a lot of us here don’t respect that name

9. Religion Can lead to bad decisions.

Another downside of religion is that it can lead to quite bad decisions for people who believe in those religious arguments.
For instance, in many religions, you are obliged to marry at some point in time.
Therefore, people decide to marry only for the purpose to be in line with their religious beliefs and not since they truly believe in this concept.
However, this may lead to a great level of unhappiness in the long run since it will lead to plenty of unhappy marriages and to family conflicts on a large scale.
Therefore, you should make important decisions based on your own preferences and not due to religious aspects since you might get in trouble otherwise in the long run.

8. Religion may slow down technological progress.

Many religions are also against the invention of new technologies since they fear that their traditional values become eroded sooner or later.
This attitude towards life may significantly slow down our technological progress since there will be less subsidies for research and development due to religious concerns.
In turn, without enough technology and technological progress, humanity may not be able to solve our environmental problems and we may be doomed at one point in time.

7. Religion contradicts with science.

The arguments that are made by religious leaders can often be disproved by scientists.
Yet, religious leaders still often claim that their religion is much more important and insightful than scientific research and that people should rather rely on religion instead of science in order to understand life.
This can lead to quite dangerous outcomes since many concepts of science had been proven to work while many religious concepts will not work at all.
Thus, it might be better to rely on scientific research instead of religion when it comes to important decisions in your life.

6. Religion can contribute to serious conflicts.

Religion often also leads to serious conflicts inside countries or even across country borders.
In fact, many people fight each other on a regular basis since they feel that they have to defend their religion against other people who do not believe in those religions at all.
Therefore, religion can also be a major factor for conflict and from an ethical perspective, this can never be regarded to be a good thing.

5. Religious books are often Unreliable source of truth.

Since they had been written thousands of years ago, religious books are often also quite hard to understand since the language that had been used is so different from the language style we use today.
Therefore, it is quite hard for many of us to verify what had been written in those holy books since we have to rely on translations instead of being able to read the original book.
Yet, those translations may often be incorrect or misleading and the true message of those holy scripts may be lost to a certain extent.

4. Religion often claims to know too much.

Many religions claim to have all the answers to life.
They often claim that if you act in a certain manner, you will be rewarded later on in your life or even after death since there is only one good way to live.
However, nobody knows exactly what’s the right way to live and if religious movements claim to know this, they are for sure not the thing you want to rely on.
Religion often claims way too much in terms of how the world works and also about life and death.
Therefore, I am personally quite skeptical about religions since in my opinion, nobody has a clue what’s waiting for us after we die.

3. Religious arguments are often flawed.

Another issue of religion is that the arguments made by priests or other religious people are often flawed and can be disproved by rather simple arguments.
However, especially people who are not that smart often believe in those arguments, which may turn out in rather unpleasant outcomes for their future life.
Thus, you should always make sure to stay rather critical towards religious arguments in order not to believe in flawed arguments that may potentially lead to bad outcomes for your life. This in turn leads to death of critical reasoning. The more religious people are, the more they lack the ability to reason critically.

2. Can lead to serious discrimination of minorities.

While many religions propose social acceptance amongst their members, they often also claim that everyone who behaves not in line with the values of those religions should be socially excluded or even discriminated against.

1. Religion is often misused by fundamentalists.
This can cause serious bad outcomes like we have seen in anti-vaccination campaigns and terrorism.
Religion brews fanaticism that has serious consequences on the society and can even slow developmental progress.