MOH Forum: PROOF THAT GOD DOESN’T EXIST

PROOF THAT GOD DOESN’T EXIST

Posted By:
Vince
May 10, 2005

okok first off that galieo dude. he said that the earth revolves around the
sun, but that went against the teachings of the church so they placed him
under house arrest untill he died. GUESS WHAT?? the earth revolves around
the sun!

2nd christianity says that god created every thing, but who created god?

3rd christianity says that you should love every body and treat them
fairly...hmmm lets see weren't the nazis chritian? Also the crusaders who
raped,killed, and looted from tones of people did it all in the name of
"god." Slave drivers that were devoted chritians treated thier slaves like
nothing. what a way to follow ur religion

4th the whole adam and eve thing. the bible states that god created adam and
eve first, but fossil records clearly show that things where on the earth be
for humans.

5th the virgin birth. right...just think about it and you will realize how
stoopid that is. how can a virgin give birth?? that just goes against all
science except the type of lizard that can clone itself. if you still belive
in the virgin birth are you implying that mary was a lizard?

6th noahs arc 2 of every animal ehhh lets see...a boat that can hold 2
elephants, rhinos, giraffs, hippos, kimono dragons, apes, wolves, and etc.
is just im possible. it would take a genious to design a boat able to do
that and noah wasn't a genious.

7th again bout the noah story. god loves you right? well then how come he
drowned everything on the planet except 2 of each animal?

8th Ahhh Noah. A few questions for you too then - where did he get the polar
bears, penguins, etc from? Noah sends a dove out to see if there was any dry
land. But the dove returns without finding any. Then, just seven days later,
the dove goes out again and returns with an olive leaf. But how could an
olive tree survive the flood? And if any seeds happened to survive, they
certainly wouldn't germinate and grow leaves within a seven day period. When
the animals left the ark, what would they have eaten? There would have been
no plants after the ground had been submerged for nearly a year. What would
the carnivores have eaten? Whatever prey they ate would have gone extinct.
And how did the New World primates or the Australian marsupials find there
way back after the flood subsided? Noah kills the "clean beasts" and burns
their dead bodies for God. According to the bible, this would have caused
the extinction of all "clean" animals since only two of each were taken onto
the ark.

9th "Love your enemies."
Well, it's a nice thought. But it seems strange coming from someone who
damns his enemies to hell.

i got like 15 more reasons if u STILL believe in god. what now u religious
fanatics!!!!

Category: Religion; Replies: 20

Comments

Papazombie	Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 \| 08:53 PM Thought I had issues in Life... :gulp: Your not provong there is no God, your only showing what most people already know - the Bible is not to be taken literaly. Time to rethink your plan of attack. 😉
vince	Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 \| 08:58 PM but don't christian people believe everthing in the bible is true? and if its not to be taken literaryly then how do u noe what parts are real or false? hahah i disproved "god" again
Mark-N-Isa in Midwest USA Member	Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 \| 09:17 PM Vince... Most of your points are sound... but mean NOTHING to the "faithful." Even evidential proof means nothing in the face of their devotion so you're not going to sway any of them... especially with this post. Also, before you "put yourself and your arguments out there" for debate you should do a little more research. #8 - In most versions of the bible it states that there were more than just two of certain animals. Seven is the number I seem to recall... anyway, the sacrifices that were made were of certain animals. These animals and sacrificial requirements were known ahead of time hence God telling Noah to take 7 of each of these animals. The whole olive branch thing though was a good point. I would be interested to hear the religious answer to that question. #6 - How do you know Noah wasn't a genius? Especially considering your spelling, I seriously doubt your ability to rate others intellect. #5 - The word "virgin" might have an entirely different meaning today than it did 2,000+ years ago. In fact, I'm quite certain that it meant "unmarried" to the Arab people of the time. To assume that it meant the same thing then as it does now is irrational. #4 - There are differing accounts on this matter, depending on what particular bible and religion you are reading. Some state that God created the Earth and animals, but felt there was something missing, so he went on to create Man. Others state that God created man and then created the animals to serve man. #3 - Christianity also says "Do unto others as they do unto you." It's called a catch-22. #2 - How is this even remotely an arguement against the validity of their ideas? Who says, theology or science, that everything must have a creator. Some things do come about by accident. Like I said earlier... most of us can relate to what you're saying, provided we can translate your use of English. But it will mean NOTHING to the religion backers and mean little to the non-believers as well because your reasons / arguements / points aren't very sound ones? But some do aspire... like the olive branch question and what would the herbivores have been eating just after the flood. Something else I've always wondered... did all fish get to live just because they were sea creatures? And what about the whales and stuff... I thought the whole point was to cleanse the entire Earth???
Papazombie	Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 \| 09:19 PM ~sigh~ 😖 Proving that the Bible is not to be taken literaly does not prove god does not exist. The bible was written by people a very long time ago. Its not like god came down and handed someone a book. It was written from the point of view of primative people with very little scientific knowledge. And no that does not mean I think Christians today are primative. What you are getting at is akin to this: 400 years ago there was no documents on solar radiation so there for there was no such thing as solar radiation 400 years ago. Picking apart literature that is ages old will not prove there is no god.
Mark-N-Isa in Midwest USA Member	Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 \| 09:22 PM Vince... Do you have any idea at all of how many different types of Christianity there are. Even the same denominations will vary from sect to sect... so NO, not all christians take the bible "literally." Really, if this is the best you got... please cease and desist because you're making the rest of the atheist crowd look bad! Seriously, read a dictionary and THINK about things before you go spouting them off...
vince	Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 \| 09:45 PM : p when i ask a friend how he knows god exist they always say the bible o_0 and i typed this during my computer science class when i was bored so yea i didn't have time 2 spell check.
Papazombie	Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 \| 09:53 PM Those people you talk to refer to the Bible because that is the focal point to their faith, just like its your focal point in debunking god. It gets both of you nowhere, just provides ammo for debates that just repeat themselves and prove nothing. 😉
Citizen Premier in spite of public outcry Member	Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 \| 11:04 PM Even if something was proven to be wrong in the Bible (like perhaps the Great Flood), and even if the Bible was proven to be mistranslated (Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live), it still would not disprove some forms of modern Christianity, and it certainly wouldn't disprove any other religions, such as Islam or Deism. Constantly trying to dispute the truth of religions is futile and silly, but I do think it's noble to attack the tenements that people hold which go against modern science. After all, ignorance of science is ignorance of the world, technology, the environment, disease, population control, industry, and plenty more. And if we are indeed fighting to bring about democracies throughout the world, then the battle against ignorance becomes a fight to reach every person in the world.
david	Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 \| 11:42 PM vince's piece is badly written, but it makes it's point. Why do Christians only believe what they want to believe? How can you base your beliefs on something that isn't meant to be taken literally? You can't just say the book of Genesis was wrong, but the book of John wasn't. If it wasn't for the Bible and it's variations no-one would believe in God unless he came down and said "hey! look at me! i'm god! i smite you!". So to say that God exists but parts of The Bible are wrong is rubbish. The Bible is God's word, remember? Either believe it all, or not at all.
Marli, Professional Pessimist	Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 \| 11:52 PM Not to mention, adam and eve were created last. If you look, all the fluffy animals came beforehand. Not to mention the hebrew word for day can also mean era, thus making that translation make more sense. Thus (somewhat) justifying evolution. But that's just me.
vince	Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 \| 11:59 PM :D yea i typed this in computer science class while i was listening 2 some religious fanatic tryin 2 conver the muslim dood sittin next 2 me. and also if people discover that there is life on other planets does that disprove chritianity because there is no record of thier creation??
Mark-N-Isa in Midwest USA Member	Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 \| 12:02 AM Well dave... No one could be more non-believing than I, but I don't see why you "must" take the bible literally in order to believe in God at all. There are some denominations out there who -believe in God, -consider the bible to be his word, -and at the same time say that it's not to be taken literally but instead is to be studied and interpreted in order to find the true meaning hidden within. Marli, True about the whole translation thing... but like I noted before, it depends on what religion you ask as to whether or not the animals came first.
Razela in Chicago, IL Member	Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 \| 12:20 AM Marli, the hebrew word for "day" has no relation to the hebrew word for "era". Day = Yom, while Era = tekoofa Mevina?
vince	Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 \| 12:25 AM well people who spend thier entire lives devoted to this "god" ughh it just makes me wanna slap them and say look at the facts! those people where were shot in the free way shootings, they were probably chritian and did god save em? nooooo. the chritian people who were killed in the tsunami did god save em? nooooooo. the missionaries that were killed in the chinese boxer rebellion did god save em? noooooooo.
Rod in the land of smarties. Member	Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 \| 12:30 AM You *cannot* prove that God does not exist. There is absolutely no evidence that he does not. The same way that you cannot prove that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny do not exist. You will never be able to gather evidence to prove they don't exist, no matter how long and hard you look. You can make a strong argument for something not existing, but there is no way to prove that somehow, somewhere, God, Jesus, Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster (not to mention Elvis and Jim Morrison) are not sitting in a strip club ogling the titties as you read this. The bottom line is that you can naver prove a negative, just make a strong case for it.
vince	Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 \| 01:40 AM but there is no proof that he does exist just like there is no proof with the easter bunny and santa claus, but Elvis is probably at a strip club :p
Citizen Premier in spite of public outcry Member	Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 \| 03:14 AM Rod, how can we know that M.C. Escher's never-ending staircase doesn't exist somewhere?
David B.	Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 \| 04:37 AM Personally, I don't hold anti-religious fanatics in any higher regard than religious ones. Superstition is fought with reason. Perhaps some of us atheists should allow the theists a rest and dismantle Vince's arguments ourselves? It's good practice to argue the 'other side', it gives you more of a feel for their arguments. [Aside] Rod said, "The bottom line is that you can naver prove a negative, just make a strong case for it." But Rod, can you prove that you can never prove a negative? If yes, then you've proved a negative. If no, then any negative you come across might be 'provable'. And what about 'there is no largest prime number'? That's negative AND proved.
Leonidas Member	Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 \| 06:03 AM of course god exists. we exist. the world exists. animals exits. plants exist. colors exist. sounds exist. the list goes on with no end. how could all this have been made without god? everything else is a lie, set to trap us.
Maegan in Tampa, FL - USA Member	Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 \| 06:30 AM This isn't a hoax or an article about a kitty in a jar. So...It really doesn't even need to be here, sort of like other posts where people come in and rant. I had a really great explanation, but then I tried to submit & had too many characters (like SIX too many!!!) and couldn't get back to copy/paste into 2 posts. Regardless, we have other threads where this is debated...

Note: This thread is located in the Old Forum of the Museum of Hoaxes.