Do YOU believe in God?

[Guest GhostRanger]

You are absolutely right. I am actually Buddhist which most classify as a religion. So let me be more specific, Christians are threatened by science and Christians have seen fit to attack it over and over again throughout centuries and into modern day.

 

 

 

I'm a Christian and I'm not threatened by science.

 

 

 

And yes, they have acted like they are in the past and some do still today. But that doesn't mean everyone is fanatical enough to believe we are threatened by that. That's called naivety and listening to propaganda.

[Godzira]

So as a Christian, how do you decide what is propaganda and what is not. The same church that feeds you the propaganda, decided on the contents of the bible, and on the modern interpretations of that content. How is it that the bible is ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅinspiredÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[Guest GhostRanger]

So as a Christian, how do you decide what is propaganda and what is not. The same church that feeds you the propaganda, decided on the contents of the bible, and on the modern interpretations of that content. How is it that the bible is ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅinspiredÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[logic-is-overrated]

I've got a few questions. What is your opinion of the first books of the Bible? Like when do you think they were written, who were they written by, and do you take the accounts to be literal history or more of a metaphor/allegory type thing?

 

 

 

My problem is that my Bible dates Moses' life to be 1525-1405 BCE. But everything that I've found in research says that the very earliest the Torah could have been written is around 7-8th century BCE. This is due to various things, like the Hewbrew used in the time Moses supposedly lived was Northwest Semitic (or Proto-Sinatic) and it possessed 27 consonants and had differing inflectional endings. Yet the type of Hebrew used in the oldest example of Biblical writing was written in a language that is considered a descendant of the ancient Northwest Semitic, in that it used 22 consonants and lacked the inflectional endings characteristic of the 16-15th century BCE Hebrew and the oldest example of this descendant writing from an archaeological context is the Gezer Stone, which is dated to be 10th Century BCE. Then, a lot of the sites that are mentioned in the Pentateuch have been excavated, and it's been found that a lot of them didn't come into existence until the late 7th century BCE (Beersheba, Gerar, Calah, and Bozrah among others) so the Pentateuch couldn't have been written before this period. And then there's the stuff Paine writes about and other things but so far it seems to be at least 5-600 years after Moses supposedly lived.

 

 

 

Another problem I have is the varying religions that existed prior to The Bible. The Persians God created the world in six days, a man called Adama and a woman called Evah, and then rested. The Etruscan, Babylonian, Phoenician, Chaldean and the Egyptian stories are much the same. The Persians, Greeks, Egyptians, Chinese and Hindus have their Garden of Eden and the Tree of Life. So the Persians, the Babylonians, the Nubians, the people of Southern India, all had the story of the fall of man and the subtle serpent. The Chinese say that sin came into the world by the disobedience of woman. And even the Tahitians tell us that man was created from the earth and the first woman from one of his bones. As for Noahs Ark, the Chaldean Flood Tablets have the story of the rain, the ark, the animals, the dove that was sent out three times, and the mountain on which the ark rested. So the Hindus, Chinese, Parsees, Persians, Greeks, Mexicans and Scandinavians have substantially the same story.

 

 

 

My last question is since the same stories have been in existence throughout various cultures, many of them sharing almost every detail, and almost all of them predating the Old Testament, what separates the Old Testament stories from the previous stories?

 

 

 

Since I'm not an expert on anything I find it hard to understand a lot of the "expertise" language that is used in a lot of websites so I just try to understand it the best I can. So if anything I've said is wrong or misinformed please correct me.

[Godzira]

You say you have reasons, what are they? ArenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t reasons the same as evidence, or are they purely emotional reasons. If they are to be considered evidence than influences your tendencies for belief than arenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t they subject to the same proofs that other forms of evidence are?

[Guest GhostRanger]

You say you have reasons, what are they? ArenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t reasons the same as evidence, or are they purely emotional reasons. If they are to be considered evidence than influences your tendencies for belief than arenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t they subject to the same proofs that other forms of evidence are?

 

 

 

They aren't evidences because they don't prove, or attempt to prove anything. Faith is my reason for believing what I do. There are things in the Bible that reinforce my faith, but they would be meaningless to anyone without faith. That's why it's at a different level than science. It's not something I'm trying to prove, it's something I feel and believe.

[Godzira]

So you would agree then that they are purely emotional reasons?

[Guest GhostRanger]

So you would agree then that they are purely emotional reasons?

 

 

 

Emotion I don't think is the right word to describe faith, but I understand what you're saying. They aren't purely emotional though - they just aren't concretely scientific. They don't prove anything, but it's not just "I feel this way so it's this way."

 

 

 

I'm not naming the specific reasons I'm talking about because I don't want to argue about them because people will try and scientifically disprove them, which is inherently silly. I'm also not responding anymore about this because I've made my point and there isn't anything else to discuss.

 

 

 

You all can keep asking for scientific proof that God exists, that's fine. Until you properly understand the signifigant differences in science, religion, and philosophy - this goes no where.

[Suus-]

I don't believe in God, of course I pray sometimes but.. I just don't think it's an important thing.

 

I do believe the ghosts under my bed.. :anxious:

[Guest GhostRanger]

I do believe the ghosts under my bed.. :anxious:

 

 

 

That's because they're there...

[kuud]

even though i go to a catholic school :-X , i do not believe in god. Its the way i am and the way i have always been. I mean cmon 2000 years all these religous miracles happened, but right know jesus is healing the blind and paralyzed. But i respect what other people believe, its their faith, not mine.

[the_blob23]

 

OF course no scientific evidence for God exists. Science deals with natural phenomena. That's like saying no biological evidence exists for the existence of airplanes, therefore I do not accept that airplanes exist. Just because some unrelated field doesn't have evidence for an unrelated object doesn't mean the object does not exist. It's simply not logical.

 

 

 

I disagree. Until something is discovered to exist, and there is some manifestation of that object actually existing, it is completely logical to say that the object doesn't exist. Could dragons and unicorns exist? They could, but we have no evidence that they do. So we say that they don't exist. That seems like sound logic to me. That's why I continue to say that the believers must have some sort of evidence for God's existence, because the status quo favors the nonaffiliated.

 

 

 

 

THe burden of proof doesn't rely on the believers because proof has to do with science, not theology. They aren't the same thing and it's fallacious to treat them as such.

 

 

 

But that doesn't really answer the question of existence. To say that God exists and theology offers proof of that existence is a circular argument, because theology takes into accout God's existence as a given. It's almost as if the believers are claiming, "God exists because I say so." While that's enough for many people, I think that believers will have to do better than that to convince the skeptics.

 

 

 

I'm not condemning theology; I have great respect for the ideas of Reinhold Niebuhr and several others, but theology doesn't offer any proof of God's existence.

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

OF course no scientific evidence for God exists. Science deals with natural phenomena. That's like saying no biological evidence exists for the existence of airplanes, therefore I do not accept that airplanes exist. Just because some unrelated field doesn't have evidence for an unrelated object doesn't mean the object does not exist. It's simply not logical.

 

 

 

I disagree. Until something is discovered to exist, and there is some manifestation of that object actually existing, it is completely logical to say that the object doesn't exist. Could dragons and unicorns exist? They could, but we have no evidence that they do. So we say that they don't exist. That seems like sound logic to me. That's why I continue to say that the believers must have some sort of evidence for God's existence, because the status quo favors the nonaffiliated.

 

 

 

God isn't an object so your point is irrelevant.

 

 

 

 

THe burden of proof doesn't rely on the believers because proof has to do with science, not theology. They aren't the same thing and it's fallacious to treat them as such.

 

 

 

But that doesn't really answer the question of existence. To say that God exists and theology offers proof of that existence is a circular argument, because theology takes into accout God's existence as a given. It's almost as if the believers are claiming, "God exists because I say so." While that's enough for many people, I think that believers will have to do better than that to convince the skeptics.

 

 

 

I'm not condemning theology; I have great respect for the ideas of Reinhold Niebuhr and several others, but theology doesn't offer any proof of God's existence.

 

 

 

I didn't say theology offers proof, I said the very notion of proof is irrelevant. You can't prove the existance of the supernatural and you don't need to. Leave proof to a field about proof - science.

 

 

 

Believers aren't trying to "convince" skeptics like people try and convince people of scientific claims. Accepting that God exists is something in the heart. When people convert to Chrsitianity, for instance, they don't talk about how they found the proof of God - no, they felt something in their heart change.

 

 

 

Since you seem to have difficulty understanding this: Theology is not about proof. We aren't trying to prove anything. Any arguments about proof are irrelevant. We do accept God's exsitance as a given and we don't care if you think that's unfounded because frankly, we don't need proof to found our beliefs. We have our reasons for believe that fall in line with our faith and what we believe, and we will never try and prove to you the existance or validity of our God and religion.

[Godzira]

So you would agree then that they are purely emotional reasons?

 

 

 

Emotion I don't think is the right word to describe faith, but I understand what you're saying. They aren't purely emotional though - they just aren't concretely scientific. They don't prove anything, but it's not just "I feel this way so it's this way."

 

 

 

I'm not naming the specific reasons I'm talking about because I don't want to argue about them because people will try and scientifically disprove them, which is inherently silly. I'm also not responding anymore about this because I've made my point and there isn't anything else to discuss.

 

 

 

You all can keep asking for scientific proof that God exists, that's fine. Until you properly understand the signifigant differences in science, religion, and philosophy - this goes no where.

 

 

 

Scientific proof would be great but I am more open minded than to be pigeon holed into that. I would simply like to see non-biblical evidence. My problem is the whole ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Åtesting scripture with scriptureÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[Guest GhostRanger]

Scientific proof would be great but I am more open minded than to be pigeon holed into that. I would simply like to see non-biblical evidence. My problem is the whole ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Åtesting scripture with scriptureÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[Godzira]

Religion isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t special. I suppose what frustrates me so much about your ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅpointÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[bull912000]

There is no proof that religion isn't real.

[the_blob23]

There is no proof that religion isn't real.

 

 

 

But there's also no proof that it is real. Therefore, until there is proof, it's not real.

[Godzira]

There is no proof that it is. Religion is the only thing that people assume exists in the absence of disproof. There are many things that cannot be disproved and they are all assumed not to exist because there is no proof that they do. They are not assumed to exist because there is no proof that they do not.

[logic-is-overrated]

There is no proof that religion isn't real.

Did you grow up in a christian family?

[insane]

There is no proof that religion isn't real.

Did you grow up in a christian family?

 

 

 

It doesn't matter :P that arguement is a fallacy, 'ad ignorantium'.

 

 

 

Just because something cannot be disproven does not mean it is true.

[yonman14]

There is no proof that religion isn't real.

Did you grow up in a christian family?

 

 

 

It doesn't matter :P that arguement is a fallacy, 'ad ignorantium'.

 

 

 

Just because something cannot be disproven does not mean it is true.

 

 

 

Quite right. That being said, Religion isn't isn't about proof or what not. It's a matter of faith. I'm NOT saying that people should refuse to believe in some things that science has shown (I refuse to say prove, because Science can't PROVE anything, all it does is suggest what human's best guess for things happening is). I'm merely suggesting that one shouldn't have to look for proof to validate their religion, they should know on the inside that it is truth, or at least what they believe in.

[lucasesco]

i believe in guthix, who's with me

[havesometea1]

There is no proof that religion isn't real.

 

 

 

There is no proof that "you" are real.

[lucasesco]

There is no proof that religion isn't real.

 

 

 

There is no proof that "you" are real.

 

 

 

punch yourself and see if youre real