Do you believe in God?
- Thread starter Patrik
- 24,083 comments
- 1,006,965 views
- 7,526
- Exorcet
- OE Exorcet
An alternative is that those questions are not important and don't have answers.
I am here because the history of the universe led to me existing, and I serve no purpose in the grand scheme of things.
But a question for you, assuming God made us and assigns us reasons for existing, why do his wishes matter? Is it just because he made us?
- 3,245
- United Kingdom
- TankAss95
What do you mean by "right"? Moral? Correct? Or both?Danoff
And that is what religion does, it's your choice to study and come to conclusion. I didn't have to do so as such, because I have faced difficult times in my life. I asked God for help and to grant me strength, and he became part of my life.
I can't see anyone living their lives happy without such questions being fulfilled. We need to ask forgiveness because we have all sinned.Exorcet
Villain
There is no "proof" for Gods existence. There is questionable evidence through historical accounts of the Bibles teachings, plus the personal experiences of many.
One more time: God is non-existent in a material sense (since Jesus). He cannot be studied or seen. The greatest physical evidence I find for the existence of God is the Bible, and the world around us that he has created.
Danoff
Premium
- 32,981
- Mile High City
Truthful.
You do see how this would be viewed as non-responsive to someone like myself right? There is no such thing as "study" when it comes to religion. There is no evidence, it's simply a long string of unsupported claims from one end to the other contradicting some other religion's long chain of unsupported claims.
- 3,245
- United Kingdom
- TankAss95
Danoff
So you are basically asking the common question of a schoolboy. How do we know the Bible is correct? It is one of the most difficult questions for Christians to answer because our certainty is built upon personal experience, faith (a word not very liked among here), and other things.
I have been told off for sending links, but please take note that I'm a relatively new Christian, along with being horrible at English and frustratingly bad at explaining myself. After a quick search in Google I found this that I found quite interesting myself:http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t003.html
I foresee you disliking the introduction but if you would like to read further at your own interest I would be pleased.
- 2,563
- Adelaide
- Heathenpride
That is not true for me.
I accepted long ago that we are simply an overpopulated race of life forms swarmed over a rock that sits in the infinite expanse of space. I have completely come to terms with the fact that when I die I die and there is no afterlife or re-incarnation as something else, we just cease to exist...
Beliefs of everlasting life in heaven, or if you're unlucky an eternity getting buggered by demons on the reg in hell, are beliefs held by folks who are terrified at the thought of "this" being all there is, it is that simple for me and I wish more people could see it.
And why oh why spend your life asking questions that most likely will never be answered? And if they will be answered it will be science that does it not any religion, that I would stake my life on.
Just enjoy your life and be good to others and make the most of what you have in the time you get, it is not rocket science and you sure as hell do not need any gods to tell you that that's a decent way to live...
And yes mate I am happy
- 17,865
- 509
I haven't sinned, I've just made a lot of mistakes I've learned from. Minus that dead hooker, I didn't learn much from that. Aside from what a hack saw does to bone.
Anyhow, back on topic. There are a lot of people that are quite content not knowing and just living their lives. I'm quite happy knowing I sometimes make other people laugh or smile, and they in turn will do the same, and it will ripple out for, well, at least 5 people. Hmm, I might need more friends for that to sound deeper I guess.
Point is, some of us are just fine living on this rock that happened to get lucky and have some proteins form up and some things bubble about into life blobs that did stuff. Besides, without people like us, you wouldn't get to have your faith tested all the time. And I hear God is into that kind of stuff, the testing and what not.
- 7,526
- Exorcet
- OE Exorcet
Here I am, and beaten by a couple of other people too (unless you count my declaring my contentedness in so many other posts).
Was this an answer to my question as to why God deserves to be obeyed? If so, I don't really get it. Sin is defined by God right? That makes the definition arbitrary, or it makes your answer circular.
Maybe what I'm getting at will be more clear with this example:
Parents have kids, do parents have the right to threaten their kids with torture if they listen to Rock and Roll instead of Classical music just because they are the parents?
- 3,245
- United Kingdom
- TankAss95
Interesting response. I am totally different. I can't imagine my life without knowing God. The best way of explaining it is that God is like a source of water for me. I simply need it to function.HeathenprideThat is not true for me.
I accepted long ago that we are simply an overpopulated race of life forms swarmed over a rock that sits in the infinite expanse of space. I have completely come to terms with the fact that when I die I die and there is no afterlife or re-incarnation as something else, we just cease to exist...
Beliefs of everlasting life in heaven, or if you're unlucky an eternity getting buggered by demons on the reg in hell, are beliefs held by folks who are terrified at the thought of "this" being all there is, it is that simple for me and I wish more people could see it.
And why oh why spend your life asking questions that most likely will never be answered? And if they will be answered it will be science that does it not any religion, that I would stake my life on.
Just enjoy your life and be good to others and make the most of what you have in the time you get, it is not rocket science and you sure as hell do not need any gods to tell you that that's a decent way to live...
And yes mate I am happy
There is another argument over the limits of science.
"Do unto others as you would like done upon yourself"? Seems perfectly fair. 👍
Azuremen
When I look at scripture I know there was an author. When I look at the incredibly complex code of the human genome I think no different.
- 17,865
- 509
Well, yeah, of course people wrote the Bible - is a collection of works from various times assembled into a tome. All "Bible" means is a collection of works. I see no reason why it would be any better than the Quran, the Vedas, and so on?
As for the genome, I see the product of millions of years of natural selection resulting in what we have today. It is no coincidence we have a great deal in common with primates at the genetic level.
- 23,800
- Philippines
If you were to actually read the genome, it would go something like this:
nociliaefjslinfgfeighfsierseveflsfivrkstwoeyesbluefrgslekcingsinklsfdimckdsaklongdorsalfiskdfineredhairflaisleappendixfourstomadifkemckslactoseintofklslecngalkd...
Just add probably five hundred percent more gibberish. If I were God, I'd code it in UNIX.
- 3,245
- United Kingdom
- TankAss95
👍
- 4,035
- Gothenburg
- Agremont
I'm another person perfectly content in life without god. The world and the universe is interesting and mysterious enough without added fantasy. Infact to me, it is a lot more interesting without a god.
And there really aren't any argument against Science. The fact that Science isn't perfect doesn't change the fact that it is by far the best explaination-tool we have. The only one infact that has got any merit.
And there really aren't any argument against Science. The fact that Science isn't perfect doesn't change the fact that it is by far the best explaination-tool we have. The only one infact that has got any merit.
- 3,245
- United Kingdom
- TankAss95
Encyclopedia
I think Christianity has acclaimed merit for helping masses of people both spiritually and through organisations like World Vision: http://www.worldvision.org.uk/
And there are arguments about science. I believe science is limited.
- 4,035
- Gothenburg
- Agremont
- 3,245
- United Kingdom
- TankAss95
Encyclopedia
Science is constantly changing. How do we know what we know is true if it is constantly being corrected? Even more, if our brains are nothing but atoms without meaning, how can we trust ourselves, or what we are thinking?
Science cannot explain what is right or wrong. Science can tell me that if I put cyanide into my grandmother's tea it will kill her, but it cannot tell me wether it is right or wrong to do so.
And that brings me to another thing. Is there such a thing as a proper atheist society? I was always told that countries were built upon the foundations of religion.
- 28,391
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Science is a double-edged sword - on the one hand, it forces us to accept reality and admit that our knowledge is incomplete. On the other hand, it also ensures that errors can be and are corrected, and that gaps in our knowledge are gradually filled. As has been said many times before here and elsewhere, it is this property - the susceptibility to falsification through new evidence - that gives real scientific theories their power. To be of any value at all, any explanation must be susceptible to change in the face of new evidence, otherwise it is merely an unchallengable dogma.
The knowledge that we have gained as a species has been built up gradually over centuries, but it was the development (and widespread adoption of) the scientific method that provides us with the ability to reject incorrect hypotheses and dogmas, and to refine our knowledge to the point where we can create powerful theories that not only explain vast swathes of evidence, but can also be used to make accurate predictions of future discoveries. Furthermore, the scientific method ensures that true scientific theories are constantly being tested, and that theories that fail these tests are either rejected wholesale, or refined to the point where they can accommodate the new findings.
We can't have it both ways. Either we accept that our knowledge is not complete, but that what we do know is supported by evidence, is accurate and is subject to correction - OR one rejects the scientific method completely and is willing to accept unchallengeable dogmas and hypotheses instead.
Neither do alot of things, but it doesn't make them any less valid. Science is simply not in the business of defining morality.
Last edited:
BobK
Premium
- 7,020
- Massachusetts, USA
Okay, I read that whole piece right down to the pretty much obligatory begging for money at the end of it. To say I found it less than convincing would be an understatement.
I'll skip over things like their claims of fulfilled prophesies and the claims of historical accuracy "far superior to" the written records of Egypt and discuss the "Scientific Accuracy" section.
From the article:
Okay, let's take a closer look, using their own references.
Isaiah 40:22
I see nothing in there about a "round [sperical] Earth", at best I see a "circle of the earth". Note that this passage has been cited elsewhere as the Bible claiming the Earth is flat, along with Biblical claims that the Earth rests on pillars, etc.
Isaiah 55:9
All that says is the heavens are higher than the earth[sic]. No mention of how high, much less any mention of how far they extend.
II Peter 3:7
All I can say is, huh? I fail to see how that can possibly be interpreted as a reference to mass-energy conservation laws.
Psalm 102:25-27
No real relationship to entropy here. "The earth and the heavens... shall perish" doesn't say why, in particular it doesn't attribute it to entropy. In fact there are references elsewhere to it being the result of some sort of cosmic cataclysm.
Job 26:7
No reference whatsoever to gravity here.
Back to this point for a sec:
That's because of the quality (or lack thereof) of the links you do supply, the above being an excellent example. I'll also mention a statement yoiu made earlier, and a like allegedly backing up the statement. I observed that I couldn't find your statement in the reference, and asked you to point out where in the reference was support for your statement. You replied with an irrelevant wall of statistics (by the way you know that 72.8 percent of the statistics you find on the internet are made up on the spot, right?), and when I asked a second time I was ignored.
So supply links if you wish, but please make sure they do in fact back up your statements, and aren't hogwash like the above link.
- 4,035
- Gothenburg
- Agremont
We can never trust our view of reality 100% but this is philosophy and not really what we're discussing. Science is as far our knowledge can go. We can never know something 100%, but we can try, and Science is by far the most honest and ambitious method. Religion doesn't try at all. It simply gives an answer based on nothing and doesn't try to investigate further.
Also, morality is not a trade mark of religion.
- 2,563
- Adelaide
- Heathenpride
This thread can be closed as all answers sought can be found here:
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=233362
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=233362
Blake
Premium
- 10,976
- NSW, Australia
- haswell00
Religion seems to think that it has a monopoly on morality, and therefore on society. The idea is that without a God (and without the reward of eternity in heaven) there will be anarchy. Apparently the only reason that people aren't constantly stealing or killing each other is because everyone is scared of going to hell.
In truth, generally people don't get their morality from the Bible. We treat people well because we want to be respected and we want other people to treat us well.
In many respects atheists actually treat people better than religious people who believe that the Bible should be understood literally. For example, I believe everyone should be treated equally regardless of sexual orientation. People should be able to marry anyone they want. Male, female, or "other". However the Bible says that homosexuals should be killed. Really? We should kill someone because of their sexual orientation? How is that moral?
- 7,526
- Exorcet
- OE Exorcet
There is a difference between the following cases:
1. Science says gravity pulls things up, then changes scientists change their mind and say it pulls right.
2. Science says gravity pulls things up, then changes scientists change their mind and say it pulls down.
3. Science says gravity pulls things down because someone hypothesized this and showed it to be true in an experiment, then changes scientists change their mind and say it pulls toward the center of the Earth because this is supported by new evidence.
1 and 2 do not happen in science, that is it is not accepted for people to make up answers as they please. Science is the last case, where there might be an incomplete conclusion made at some point which is later corrected/completed with new evidence.
If you think science is not trustworthy, you should not trust at all your computer, any medicine, vehicles, or pretty much anything. We don't need to know every detail about the universe to know how to do something. We don't even need to know exactly how something works. Tires are a mystery in many ways, but no one freaks out wondering if the tires on their car will come to life and eat them just because we don't know exactly how they work. We have models of tires, admittedly incomplete, but enough to predict their behavior.
BobK
Premium
- 7,020
- Massachusetts, USA
Okay. Up until the end of the 19th Century, Newtonian mechanics explained much of what we observed to most peoples' satisfaction. Then came the revolution in physics kicked off by Einstein, Heisenberg, et al. They showed that Newtonian mechanics were "wrong". But bridges, buildings and ships built according to Newtonian mechanics still worked just fine. Relativity didn't mean that Newton was completely, 100% wrong. It meant that Newton was pretty close in most conditions, certainly close enough to build skyscrapers.
Just because you now have a micrometer doesn't make your yardstick any less useful. You can still use it to build a house, for instance. But the micrometer will now allow you to build a watch.
Mathematics will tell you how much cyanide to put in Grandma's tea. But mathematics won't tell you if it's right or wrong to do so, either. Linguistics won't tell you either. Is this somehow a failing of mathematics or linguistics? So why should it be a failing of science? Remember that science does not claim to have "all the answers".
Whether it's right or wrong to put cyanide in Grandmas tea is more a subject for philosophy, not science (or mathematics, or linguistics). This has been pointed out to you on many occasions in this thread. Why do you keep bring it up again?
- 5,812
- shmogt
This is Steve Jobs explaining views on life. I think here is a good place to post this because he's saying open your minds. You are no smarter than anyone else. Everything you have learned so far has been taught by someone else who learned it. You have the power to except or disregard anything you choose to. And no one is right or wrong for doing so.
Lain
Premium
- 7,067
- Pasadena, TX
- Yaywalter
Science/knowledge is constantly evolving. It's not just changing randomly for the sake of changing. If it didn't evolve, we'd still believe that the Earth is flat and is the center of the universe.
So if you think it's a bad thing for our understandings of what is true to come more in line with what is ACTUALLY true, and if you can't accept the fact that we'll probably never attain complete knowledge of all that exists, then feel free to sweep all the unexplainable and undesirable under the rug of fantasy and religion. I'm not going blind myself like that, and I'm gonna do my best to lift that rug up and show people what's underneath it.
- 906
- orlando,FL,USA
Blake
The reluctance to steal, yet alone kill have nothing to with a fear of hell but rather a fear of retalitory actions(such as violence) or the fear of the state iself. If the fear of hell was really the driving force against acts society consider abhorrent, then you might as well get rid of every criminal institution may it be the courts, jail or law enforcement.
- 3,082
- Allen, Texas
- crispychicken49
- crispychicken49
Under that how can we trust religion? It's just something that's thought of by someone else's atoms, passed on from generation. That mean's that we can't trust it anymore than we can trust science.
The problem is we can use physical properties to define science. We drop a ball and we can prove gravity. Can you prove religion that way? Through a book, yes, but what makes the Bible anymore true then any other religious book? What makes it any different then if I wrote a book and claimed it to be true? What makes it different than the fictional book I'm reading? They both have stories, written by a collection of atoms, that describe the supernatural.
- 27,162
- United Kingdom
And the thing you repeatedly fail to understand is that you can be right or wrong with certain things. Coming up with an answer to something that's different from the status quo doesn't automatically make you right just because you're free to believe what you wish.
I think the Earth is flat. Steve Jobs says I can't be wrong in thinking that, so I must be correct even though there's massive evidence that says otherwise.
See how that works? I'm loathe to even bring Steve Jobs into this as he was clearly talking of his own creative endeavors rather than disregarding massive scientific evidence just to have your own opinion on something.
You seem to have this obsession with making up your own answers for something and that you only think certain things because someone else told you to. That's rubbish.
Yes, certain people might have dug up dinosaur bones and make a T-Rex out of them or observed galaxies 14 billion light years from us but they're doing that job and doing that research because they're the experts, so I'm quite happy to accept that the dinosaur skeleton they created or red-shift they observed is accurate.
I'm not about to go doubting them for the sole purpose of doing my own thing. That'd just make me a moron. There's free will and then there's being thick.
Similar threads
