Do you believe in God?

[Exorcet]

And what does it matter what someone's belief is?

Please spend some time here.

Those are examples of what I was referring to in my post.

A more realistic example than the pork thing might be performing an exorcism on someone suffering seizures. It won't help them.

Once again, I am not addressing religion. This thread is purely for the existence of God not whether religion is right or wrong. I've already stated my stance on religion.

Right, you are not. But your original post says "someone's" which is more general, and includes religion. If someone believes in the Christian God literally as is in the Bible for example, they believe in the Christian religion (or they'll ignore him and believe that they will be sent to hell?).

And actually all of that is an aside, you asked

what does it matter what someone's belief is?

An answer was given to that question.

 

[Tic Tach]

Right, they aren't looking to answer those questions either.

Wrong. You still don't get it. You believe in a supernatural concept, void of evidence. In essence, your beliefs are delusional and a hallucination, nothing but dreams and "neat ideas", so it is no wonder that science (which by the way is open to ALL observable phenomena) doesn't have anything to say about your god, as it very likely doesn't exist.

 

[Joey D]

Those are examples of what I was referring to in my post.

A more realistic example than the pork thing might be performing an exorcism on someone suffering seizures. It won't help them.

Correct, but that tackles the issue of religion not God. I keep stating that they are not mutually exclusive to one another. You can follow a religion and not believe in God, I know Jewish people that do exactly this, just as you can believe in God without following a religion, like myself.

Right, you are not. But your original post says "someone's" which is more general, and includes religion. If someone believes in the Christian God literally as is in the Bible for example, they believe in the Christian religion (or they'll ignore him and believe that they will be sent to hell?).

OK I'll admit that wasn't exactly clear in my original post, but you can probably see from my other posts that I haven't addressed religion at all and have said many times that much of it has been disproven.

Yes, fanaticals of anything are dangerous and when they use whatever belief to cause harm then yes it causes a negative impact. But look at all the whack jobs conspiracy theorist, they cause harm too but no one seems to be addressing them...in fact some members who have posted in this thread have posted that they agree with these conspiracy theories in other threads.

Wrong. You still don't get it. You believe in a supernatural concept, void of evidence. In essence, your beliefs are delusional and a hallucination, nothing but dreams and "neat ideas", so it is no wonder that science (which by the way is open to ALL observable phenomena) doesn't have anything to say about your god, as it very likely doesn't exist.

Please answer my challenge, if these God believing scientist who have made great discoveries are some how inferior to someone who doesn't think their is a God, then what, pray tell, have you done better than these minds? If you don't believe in God then you must someone be better then everyone that does, so please share, I eagerly await.

 

[Exorcet]

Correct, but that tackles the issue of religion not God. I keep stating that they are not mutually exclusive to one another. You can follow a religion and not believe in God, I know Jewish people that do exactly this, just as you can believe in God without following a religion, like myself.

But you can also believe in a religion because you believe that religion's God exists exactly as he is described by his religion.

And basically, casting religion aside, if there is no evidence for God, believing in God is illogical, and then logical people have a reason to fear believers making decisions (because it would seem that believers are more likely to accept illogical things).

 

[PeterJB]

Why not? Why would a deity consciously refrain from helping primitive man to understand his world?






I used to say this very thing too, for many years, but as any kind of moral guide, the bible utterly fails. Our bookshelves are literally loaded with books that are more helpful in all manner of areas of human concern than the bible.

How many repulsive verses in the bible would you like me to provide? I can provide a LOT. More than one post will allow in a character/word count.




I suggest that the only reason that you regard the bible as anything more than the scribblings of primitive desert men, is because you (and I, and all of us) have been born into a world/country/region where a whole bunch of other people have been hypnotized into believing that this book is something special.

I feel fairly confident that if the bible never took off and became popular the way it did, and now you, while on vacation in Palestine in 2011 stumbled across and unearthed an old dusty book called "the Bible", and read it, you would not view it is any source of special wisdom at all. Rather, I suggest, you would view it as nothing more than what we would fully expect to find from the pre-scientific, ignorant, superstitious people of that time & place.

"Love your neighbour as yourself" - Leviticus 19:18

"Judge not lest ye be judged" - Matthew 7:1

"Let those who are without sin cast the first stone" - John 8:7

"If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us" - 1 John 1:8

Those seem like pretty good morals to me.

What you don't seem to realise is that the controversial laws in Leviticus for example, do not apply in modern society. The Old Testament is also known as the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant was superceded by the New Covenant, when Jesus came into the World. Many of the rules in Leviticus were specific to those people in that context, and do not apply in modern society. The same could be said about some of what is written in Paul's letters to the churches. There are however universal principles in the Old Testament such as the 10 Commandments, which can be applied to all people in every time, wherever they live. Most thinking Christians do not interpret every word of the Bible literally, instead they weigh it up carefully, taking into consideration the context of when each book was written, who it was written by, and who it was written for.

 

[Joey D]

But you can also believe in a religion because you believe that religion's God exists exactly as he is described by his religion.

And basically, casting religion aside, if there is no evidence for God, believing in God is illogical, and then logical people have a reason to fear believers making decisions (because it would seem that believers are more likely to accept illogical things).

It may be illogical to you, but maybe not to me. As I've stated I don't subscribe to a religion but believe in God, I've also stated how I came to my belief in a higher power. I used to be a diehard atheist but through examination of myself and my beliefs I changed my opinion. So to me the concept of a higher power is logical. I also tend not to accept illogical things so I wouldn't paint everyone with a broad brush.

 

[Exorcet]

It may be illogical to you, but maybe not to me. As I've stated I don't subscribe to a religion but believe in God, I've also stated how I came to my belief in a higher power. I used to be a diehard atheist but through examination of myself and my beliefs I changed my opinion. So to me the concept of a higher power is logical. I also tend not to accept illogical things so I wouldn't paint everyone with a broad brush.

Well I said if there was no evidence for God, then belief is illogical. This is true.

I just don't happen to see anything I would classify as evidence, while you do. This is fine. This means that there may be evidence.

However one of us is probably wrong. I did not attempt to find out which one.

 

[Sam48]

What you don't seem to realise is that the controversial laws in Leviticus for example, do not apply in modern society. The Old Testament is also known as the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant was superceded by the New Covenant, when Jesus came into the World. Many of the rules in Leviticus were specific to those people in that context, and do not apply in modern society. The same could be said about some of what is written in Paul's letters to the churches. There are however universal principles in the Old Testament such as the 10 Commandments, which can be applied to all people in every time, wherever they live. Most thinking Christians do not interpret every word of the Bible literally, instead they weigh it up carefully, taking into consideration the context of when each book was written, who it was written by, and who it was written for.

That's one thing that bothers me about atheists when they mock christianity. When quoting the Bible, they either take everything very literally, or they don't use common sense and ask themselves, "Was this written in a time when this might have been considered normal or proper?".

 

[High-Test]

The nuts and bolts of Religion and whether or not one believes in God are quite different.

Indeed, belief in God will lead many to religious practices, but it does not necessarily mean that one will be overtly religious.

In short, people who truly follow logic are afraid of being harmed by people who don't follow logic. I share this concern.

Sure.

One could get T-Boned by a guy running late for work who runs a red light. A bank teller could ruin one's finances by missing a few keystrokes. A doctor could give someone a misdiagnosis and that person could be dead in a week.

One is far more likely to get harmed by somebody who is simply not paying attention than a religious fanatic who is afraid of pork.

And at least for Jews, who usually don't partake of tasty bacon - One is obligated to preserve one's life at the cost of breaking commandments. If pork is all there is at the Donner pass, a Jew is compelled to eat it in order to survive.

A more realistic example than the pork thing might be performing an exorcism on someone suffering seizures. It won't help them.

I couldn't agree more with the ridiculousness of the situation in this statement.

However, who you are most likely renders the odds of such misfortune at the hands of pesky theists happening in the first place. As it is likely that you do not associate with any people who would think to perform an exorcism during a seizure or any of the other examples you've provided, the odds of harm befalling from religious people are extremely low.

 

[Joey D]

Well I said if there was no evidence for God, then belief is illogical. This is true.

I just don't happen to see anything I would classify as evidence, while you do. This is fine. This means that there may be evidence.

However one of us is probably wrong. I did not attempt to find out which one.

I apologize, I must have misread the statement.

Since there is no way to know, either one of us or both of us could be wrong, just as both of us could be partially right. There may be something beyond any of our comprehension controlling the universe.

 

[Exorcet]

"Was this written in a time when this might have been considered normal or proper?".

If religion is supposed to be a guide to moral living, why would subservient women be OK at any point in time?

Now if one believes religion was purely created by humanity, that makes sense.

If religion comes from God, it makes less sense.

 

[Tic Tach]

Those seem like pretty good morals to me.

Yes, one can find some good stuff in the bible, but you quickly become a master cherry picker, for there's volumes of horrific material there, which is the last thing one would expect from a book inspired by the creator of the universe. You are making excuses and rationalizations, and it's really getting exhausting dealing with your refusal to be rational and honest.

What you don't seem to realise is that the controversial laws in Leviticus for example, do not apply in modern society.

Listen bub, I was a serious christian for a quarter century. I know this garbage fairly well. But to your above point (which is just more regurgitation of what you've been brainwashed with) doesn't make any sense.

I want you to explain to all of us here why it was absolutely necessary for this god of yours to recommend all of the petty, barbaric, repulsive things in the OT, and not just cut to the chase with the fully digestable good stuff.

Please don't wiggle around this - I want a good answer, and not more tissue-thin excuses. It's getting to be like nailing Jello to a wall with you.

 

[arora]

Varadaraja V. Raman: Emeritus Professor of Physics and Humanities, Rochester Institute of Technology.

What is important is not how we envisage that worldly stuff(physics), but what we do to our fellow beings and to that world given our view of ultimate reality. That has been the perennial challenge for the world, and it is there that human history reveals an appalling lack of wisdom.

I added this for clarity, otherwise the quote would be TL;DR

And to show his humorous side some find quite funny.

Now two questions remain. First: How did it all begin? Science says Big Bang, and religions say God. Why not simply say, God said, "Let there be a Big Bang, and the wide world was born." And God also said, "Let there be a Little Bang, and the DNA was born." Second question: What will happen to me when I die? I'll just wait and see, and I'm in no hurry to find that out. That's my statement on religion and science, and now I must get back to my sports program on TV.

His message regarding the conflict between science and religion, which is the main reason I brought up these quotes from an old note tab in my bottom desk drawer. And yes, I'm simply pulling a tic-tac posting style(bite me ) Seriously though, I think I've typed out enough of my own opinion by my big boy self for one day, besides who want's to read my dribble anyway.

Science is a quest to explain the world, to understand natural phenomena in a consistent, coherent, and rational framework. Through its meticulous methodology science has shown the causes of rain and thunder and a thousand other things we observe every day (…) Religions arose from the recognition of the significance of consciousness in a mindless universe. They have formulated ethical principles that channel our instincts for gratification and restrain self-centered aggressive behavior (…) Religions also carry the weight of tradition. Sacred history which is deeply etched in the collective psyche of billions all over the world tells us that religions emerged from the visions of Hindu sage-poets, from the covenant of Moses with God, from the enlightenment of the Buddha, from the commitment of Mahavira to non-violence, from the sermons of Jesus of Nazareth, from the revelations to Prophet Mohammed, and from such momentous milestones in the cultural saga of humanity. The core question in the conflict between science and religion is: Which is primary: matter-energy or consciousness? (…) Science arises when the finite mind tries to grasp the infinite complexity of the world. Religious experience arises when the finite mind contemplates on the infinite mystery. Both science and religion instill awe for the wonders of the world, respect for the flora and fauna that enrich our planet, and reverence for air and fire, for sunlight and soil, for rivers and oceans and for all the myriad forces that sustain life.

Well said imo.

 

[Tic Tach]

One additional question for PeterJB:

If you claim that the bibull is a moral guide, I want to know: what tools do you use to discern the good parts from the bad parts?

 

[Joey D]

If religion is supposed to be a guide to moral living, why would subservient women be OK at any point in time?

Now if one believes religion was purely created by humanity, that makes sense.

If religion comes from God, it makes less sense.

I believe it's generally thought by most Christians that God did not write the Bible through people, but rather inspired them to write it. This would explain why many areas of it often have outdated thoughts and ideas, the society was much different back then...although archaeology makes discoveries all the time to show that might not have been the case.

 

[Sam48]

If religion is supposed to be a guide to moral living, why would subservient women be OK at any point in time?

I never said they were.

Now if one believes religion was purely created by humanity, that makes sense. If religion comes from God, it makes less sense.

Joey D put it well. And no, religion did not come from God. Religion is a man made method in which people try to more fully understand and gain knowledge of God.

 

[PeterJB]

Listen bub, I was a serious christian for a quarter century. I know this garbage fairly well. But to your above point (which is just more regurgitation of what you've been brainwashed with) doesn't make any sense.

I want you to explain to all of us here why it was absolutely necessary for this god of yours to recommend all of the petty, barbaric, repulsive things in the OT, and not just cut to the chase with the fully digestable good stuff.

Please don't wiggle around this - I want a good answer, and not more tissue-thin excuses. It's getting to be like nailing Jello to a wall with you.

I don't believe in the God you don't believe in, either. I don't believe that God recommended any of the "petty barbaric repulsive things in the OT". It's quite possible to be a Christian and not to believe that every word in the Bible must be taken to be literally true. Presumably the people who wrote Leviticus believed that God had told them all those things, but they were fallible human beings who were writing from their particular mindset and in their context and within their culture, none of which exist today. They were concerned about purity (which to them meant something different than it might mean to us) and keeping the nation of Israel separate and holy, distinct from the other nations around them. The principles of holiness and purity still apply to Christians today, but in very different contexts; therefore the specific details of how it is worked out will be different.

If you were a Christian for 25 years, you must understand this better than I do.

One additional question for PeterJB:

If you claim that the bibull is a moral guide, I want to know: what tools do you use to discern the good parts from the bad parts?

The gift of discernment (which comes from God by the way)

 

[High-Test]

I believe it's generally thought by most Christians that God did not write the Bible through people, but rather inspired them to write it.

+18

Religious texts are not divinely given, they are divinely inspired.

Ex: Torah is a reflection of what a group of people lost in the desert thought to be the will of God. However, I do believe that God revealed Godself at Sinai to the entirety of the tribe. Otherwise.. compiling such a text would have been silly. The tribe wrote down 613 commandments, things they thought they had to do in order to ensure solidarity among their people. For a premodern, mechanical society, (see: The Division of Labor In Society by Émile Durkheim) deviance = BAD.

For 1300 BCE, it's not that bad of a legal code. At some point in the time afterward, it was updated.

At least for Jews, it was realized very quickly that Torah could not be taken merely at face value. The Rabbis compiled their rulings and interpretations of various commandments and issues of religious practice. - Between the time of the Old Testament and the current day, Rabbis have been compiling responsa and reinterpreting religious texts to make more sense for their age.

An example: "An eye for an eye"

or:

"If someone screws up and I lose my hand, should I chop his or hand off?"

The Rabbis said no. One should get restitution for the lost hand.


Another example would be the Risalat al-Tauhid (Treateise on the Oneness of God) by Muhammad Abduh in the 1880s asserting that it is the job of every muslim to apply his or her religion to fit his or her needs in his or her time.

 

[Tic Tach]

I'm sorry PeterJB, but your answer(s) are not satisfactory. They are nothing more than more rationalizations and excuses.

I want you to give me one example of a moral guide or recommendation that we understand today that could not have been applicable to or understood by people 2000-3000 years ago.

Please understand that your claim that the bible is a moral guide utterly fails the moment you use your own moral intuitions to exclude large parts of it.

 

[PeterJB]

I'm sorry PeterJB, but your answer(s) are not satisfactory. They are nothing more than more rationalizations and excuses.

I want you to give me one example of a moral guide or recommendation that we understand today that could not have been applicable to or understood by people 2000-3000 years ago.

Please understand that your claim that the bible is a moral guide utterly fails the moment you use your own moral intuitions to exclude large parts of it.

I think my answer was reasonable so we will have to agree to disagree on that point.

I don't understand the point of your question about giving an example etc etc??

You are assuming that to use anything such as the Bible as a moral guide means that you slavishly follow everything written in it without using any rational thought or judgement of your own. This is a ridiculous way of looking at it. It is quite rational and reasonable to assess a book critically and make a decision about what is still valid today and what is not.

 

[Tic Tach]

Great. Then that's all it is, just another book, written by fallible, primitive patriarchal, desert men.

 

[PeterJB]

Thats YOUR opinion. I see it differently.

 

[TankAss95]

Great. Then that's all it is, just another book, written by fallible, primitive patriarchal, desert men.

Some of the best literature and poetry known to man can be found within the Bible. Regardless wether you believe it's contents, it is a foolish statement to make that it "is just another book".

 

[huskeR32]

Some of the best literature and poetry known to man can be found within the Bible. Regardless wether you believe it's contents, it is a foolish statement to make that it "is just another book".

The only way it's more than just another book is if its contents are true. And the last page or two is full of theists saying the Bible isn't true, and isn't meant to be true. Are you going the opposite direction here? I'd think carefully about that if I were you.

If you agree with the others that it's a book that should not be taken literally and valued instead for the moral guidance it provides, then it's one among thousands that do the same thing. In other words, just another book.

 

[hampus_dh]

Thats YOUR opinion. I see it differently.

Obviously you do. But don´t you think a book of God would be great from page 1 to the last one?

Or could it be a group of guys just had no idea where they were and just started writing the greatest science fiction book ever in human history?

Nobody knew what was in the sky (obviously you go there when you die)
Nobody knew what was below them (obviously you go there if you are bad)
No science avaliable to explain anything on the planet and thus, religion was the only logical explanation for everything on earth.

To me an even more illogical thing to do is pick and choose what sounds good in the bible and go by that when most of the things that sound good falls under "Common Sense" for the rest of us.

The bad stuff is either a metaphor for something else, a personal interpretation or simply an excuse for the fact that people back then knew nothing.

Except that God created the earth and humans despite not having a clue how the earth looks.

Tankass You have never thought about why God haven´t showed up again?

He could have just said "what´s up guys? Just wanted to let everyone know i´m still here not doing anything other then watching you all day all night and judging people left and right, don´t mind me though keep doing what you do"

 

[Wyvern_64]

Short Answer: No.

But whatever someone may believe in, I completely respect that have nothing against it. I have friends from many different religions and we sometimes talk/lightly debate about it but it's all in a good friendly manner. One of the things I hate is people trying to shove their beliefs down my throat. Just let people believe what they want to believe and leave it at that.

 

[homeforsummer]

Joey D put it well. And no, religion did not come from God. Religion is a man made method in which people try to more fully understand and gain knowledge of God.

With that being the case and given the number of inaccuracies within, why bother referring to the bible in modern religion at all?

Would it not be better to use your own, personal interpretations of God and live your life by personal standards rather than a text that basically reflects the interpretations of people who died a few millenia ago?

That's a serious question by the way. If you believe in God then fair enough, but why believe in God according to a pretty flaky ancient book rather than just your own interpretations? Incidentally, if I have it correctly (and I may not), this is how Joey's belief seems to sit judging by what he's written so far on the subject.

 

[Joey D]

The only way it's more than just another book is if its contents are true. And the last page or two is full of theists saying the Bible isn't true, and isn't meant to be true. Are you going the opposite direction here? I'd think carefully about that if I were you.

I've always been lead to believe the Bible is more of a guideline on how to live your life and you can pick and choose what makes sense to you. The Gospel is basically an account of Jesus's life as seen through 4 of his disciples, I imagine like any biography it has some hyperbole going on.

While I am skeptical of the miracles performed in the Bible, I do think many of the historical elements are true to some degree. Yes archaeology has found some evidence that puts doubt in the legitimacy of the Bible, but they have also found a great deal of evidence for.

Also I wouldn't say it's just a book, it seems to be the most influential book in the world capable of changing lives from anywhere on a personal level to a massive group of people.

Nobody knew what was in the sky (obviously you go there when you die)
Nobody knew what was below them (obviously you go there if you are bad)
No science avaliable to explain anything on the planet and thus, religion was the only logical explanation for everything on earth.

You aren't giving the ancients nearly enough credit for being able to figure things out. They had plenty of scientific know how to understand the world around them. The Egyptians and Babylonians are great example from the time period.

With that being the case and given the number of inaccuracies within, why bother referring to the bible in modern religion at all?

Would it not be better to use your own, personal interpretations of God and live your life by personal standards rather than a text that basically reflects the interpretations of people who died a few millenia ago?

The New Testament provides information on how to live your life in the way of Jesus, which is what most Christians want to follow anyway. Jesus probably was a real person who spread a message on loving your neighbor, but I doubt he did a vast majority of the things accounted in the Bible. The accounts were probably written with a massive does of hyperbole.

Also it's important to note that the Bible has been rewritten time and time again to be reconstructed or modified to be better used as a tool by the Church. It's also worth noting there are several books missing or omitted from the Bible that maybe leaving out some critical details, like Jesus possibly having a wife.

If you would like to see what some of the book are you can see em on Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Gospels

And no I'm not getting into any of that Da Vinici Code crap.

That's a serious question by the way. If you believe in God then fair enough, but why believe in God according to a pretty flaky ancient book rather than just your own interpretations? Incidentally, if I have it correctly (and I may not), this is how Joey's belief seems to sit judging by what he's written so far on the subject.

This is correct, my belief in God when I was younger was based around the Bible since that's all I knew. I went to Catholic Church and attended Catholic school so I was surrounded with it all the time. Now that I'm older I know what's out there and can develop opinions based on that.

 

[Tic Tach]

I've always been lead to believe the Bible is more of a guideline on how to live your life and you can pick and choose what makes sense to you.

Unfortunately, christendom doesn't agree with you. It states that the bible is the inerrent word of god, and you don't get to pick & choose.

The Gospel is basically an account of Jesus's life as seen through 4 of his disciples, I imagine like any biography it has some hyperbole going on.

More than hyperbole, while the gospels have titles of seemingly the authors names, the real authors are unknown, and were written decades after the alleged life of the Jesus character (who I maintain likely never existed). Most christians are surprised to learn that apostle Paul never knew or met the person of Jesus.

Scroll way down here to "Gospels& Acts".



For you.

 

[Sam48]

With that being the case and given the number of inaccuracies within, why bother referring to the bible in modern religion at all?

Because most christians know the Bible isn't spot on in terms of factuality, and ditching the Bible all together would be like ditching syrup on your waffles. Sure, you don't need the syrup, but what would waffles be without it? The Bible represents christianity.

Would it not be better to use your own, personal interpretations of God and live your life by personal standards rather than a text that basically reflects the interpretations of people who died a few millenia ago?

I substitute my own interpretation of the Bible into my overall belief, as does every other christian. For example, christian fundamentalists will tell you Jesus had brothers and sisters, because the Bible said so. However, anyone who has even the slightest knowledge of early middle Eastern language will tell you that the term "Brothers and sisters" means relatives, or friends.