Religion.

[Jyosua]

Well, how could you not believe in him? That's the thing about faith, it's believing without seeing. There's nothing disproving his existance, but there is no evidence of his existance. However, there is evidence of most of the people in the Bible existing for historical fact. There was historical proof of Abraham, there was historical Moses, there was historical proof Soloman, the only people that come to mind that haven't been proven to exist are Adam, Eve, and all the other people around before written history. Jesus even did exist, based on historical proof. The question is whether he is the son of God or not. And for Abraham, it's a matter if he really did speak to God or not.

Just because these people existed doesn't mean the things written about them are true. In fact, the only reason we take written things as fact for history, is when there are multiple sources that agree on the same thing. With Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, they all were birthed from each other, so they don't count as multiple sources. It's all basically the same people saying "This is fact".

Going by my instincts, I consider the fact that Abraham used to be in a polytheistic society, a place where many gods were worshiped. It would seem kind of random to just go and say, "Hey, I think I'll go out of Mesopotamia and worship one God from now on, and his name is Yahweh". So either he really was on to something, or he just had a random dream. I think the first. No proof for it, no proof against it. You'd just have to be there to say it was true or false for a fact.

Sure it's random. It's going against all the teachings of society. But like Crystal said, it's not like anyones never had to go against society before - take slavery for instance. It was accepted for a long time. Then randomly people started going, "fuck this, it isn't right", despite everyone else being completely fine with it. It's the same thing.

Now for Jesus, to proclaim that you are the son of God is serious business. You either have to be crazy or telling the truth to say things like that. Based on his teachings, he definately doesn't strike me as crazy, so that's why I think he told the truth. No historical proof of him being the son of God, but definately no proof against him being the son of God.

Or he could be a smart motherfucker who realized the only way to instill proper morals into people was to take advantage of their tendency to be religious, and create his own following. Imagine that, someone who comprehends the mindset of the masses - a genius! Wow we haven't had any geniuses in history before. Basically I think he was a philosopher who was crafty in his ways of getting his word out to people. That's not saying his teachings weren't good - I'd say they were.

All in all, that's what faith is to me. Believing, although there isn't proof of it being true or false. Then again, the fact that there are three religions that worship the same God (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) helps firm my belief that there is a God. That's my 50 cents to that question, and I approve this message.

Faith is believing without proof. Therefore, those of us who realize that there's no proof, and decide not to worry about it (agnostics), aren't really in the wrong. If you choose to believe it anyways, despite there being no proof, that's your thing. Nobody's here to stop you.

[Metal Rabbit]

I guess only my friends would know it from how I act in certain situations. I'm christian and I believe in god. I have faith and I pray occasionally.

I am extremely liberal in both religious and political beliefs though.

[Ragnell]

I'm Roman Catholic, and was just confirmed recently. I have not stopped going to church, though.

Firstly, most Christians are not nutters who hate all other religions, despise gays, and are perfectly politically correct. That is just a stereotype used by those who want to discredit the beliefs of Christians (there are some people like that, don't get me wrong, but not as many as some make there out to be). I personally spit in the face of political correctness, welcome the views of other religions and don't think gay people are the devil.

As for some proof of Christianity, look up the uncorrupted saints. They're saints whose bodies have never decayed. There may be some scientific explanation for this, but it hasn't been found yet. But there truly is very little proof of Christianity. Hence the whole believing without seeing idea.

[Esau of Isaac]

Ok, so guys, in the "Abortion" thread, Esau of Isaac has challenged me to use scientific evidence to prove that the theory of god is not a total joke. So, I need some help, when was our Sun created? 4.5 billion years ago?

That's relatively correct, give or take a bit more time.

Yeah...I may as well prove that it isn't completely impossible though. And the suns age is very important since, since the bible says that god created the sun and moon after he created the dry land. The earths very first rock started around 4.6 billion years ago, so if the sun is older than that, I'm screwed.

You already lost. The Bible states that oceans exist before light, which is factually incorrect.

Whoa, hold on a minute, Wikipedia said that it was the Hadean Eon that had the very first rocks, and that was 4.6 billion years ago.

The Earth is around 4.5 billion years old. So your statistic is relatively accurate.

Yeah...I'm a very avid christian who believes in a God, but trying to convince someone who doesn't want to be convinced is like nailing Jello to a tree, and it gets very annoying after a while. I'd try to put up an arguement about why God exists if someone asks how I could possibly believe in him, but it's kinda pointless to go any farther than that.

Because the arguments are faulty by nature, and you're pretty much damned from the beginning in trying to pass off faith as a logically sound decision.

Well, how could you not believe in him? That's the thing about faith, it's believing without seeing. There's nothing disproving his existance, but there is no evidence of his existance. However, there is evidence of most of the people in the Bible existing for historical fact. There was historical proof of Abraham, there was historical Moses, there was historical proof Soloman, the only people that come to mind that haven't been proven to exist are Adam, Eve, and all the other people around before written history. Jesus even did exist, based on historical proof. The question is whether he is the son of God or not. And for Abraham, it's a matter if he really did speak to God or not.

Well hot damn, I guess my issues of Superman are to be taken as historic fact because they have actually existent people in them at times.

There are a load of characters in the Bible whose history are quite different from their actual selves.

Now for Jesus, to proclaim that you are the son of God is serious business. You either have to be crazy or telling the truth to say things like that. Based on his teachings, he definately doesn't strike me as crazy, so that's why I think he told the truth. No historical proof of him being the son of God, but definately no proof against him being the son of God.

You are well aware that there were hundreds of others that basically claimed the same things he did, right?

Meh, that's not what I was trying to say there. The whole point of the post I made was that I believe in God because there is no evidence against it, even though there is no proof for it.

There's plenty of evidence against it in terms of its lack of logic, but if you're looking for actual and undeniable evidence that something doesn't exist, then you're asking for an impossibility. There is nothing that right out says that Santa Claus does not exist, but no one older than twelve that actually understands the world around them vests belief in a centuries-old elf that can fly around the world in one night on a flying sleigh drawn by magical reindeer to deliver presents to the good boys and girls. And why is that?

It's because it totally lacks evidence, and it contradicts what is reasonable and logical.

[Nightgraves]

You already lost. The Bible states that oceans exist before light, which is factually incorrect.

[and some of the rest]

Nonetheless, I must point out that the Bible isn't a scientific book. Doing so is like taking Harry Potter as a scientific book- simply non-sense.

The point of the Bible is to teach some morals, plus what is God's intent. Be I a believer or not, I don't think if an infinitely complex being will teach by saying things straight out, let alone I'd believe we'd be able to understand.

[Metal Rabbit]

Keep in mind that people in the days of the bible were ignorant of the world around them.

[Esau of Isaac]

Nonetheless, I must point out that the Bible isn't a scientific book. Doing so is like taking Harry Potter as a scientific book- simply non-sense.

I don't contend that. But if the Bible is wrong factually in one area, then why vest belief in any other parts of it?

[Nightgraves]

I don't contend that. But if the Bible is wrong factually in one area, then why vest belief in any other parts of it?

You missed the point then. It's the message, not the facts. It isn't a history book either.

[FionordeQuester]

You already lost. The Bible states that oceans exist before light, which is factually incorrect.

How do you know that that's incorrect?

[Nightgraves]

You already lost. The Bible states that oceans exist before light, which is factually incorrect.

How do you know that that's incorrect?

You just made me realize something interesting, which is sort of pointless anyways.

[edit]

Noun

ocean (plural oceans)

1. One of the five large bodies of water separating the continents.

2. (figuratively) An immense expanse; any vast space or quantity without apparent limits; as, the boundless ocean of eternity; an ocean of affairs.

[Ragnell]

Yeah, many Christians (myself included) believe that the bible taught morals through stories. Stuff like Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark, and the Creation of the world may not have really happened exactly as said in the bible. 'Cause God couldn't exactly tell people 2000+ years ago scientifically how the earth started. They were still figuring out that the world wasn't the center of the solar system. So everything in the bible (especially in Revelations) shouldn't be taken at exact face value.

[Destiny Hero]

The Bible has been edited over and over again throughout history. Royalty and early governments have also eedited t, to make it favor them.

The Bible is even less reliable than Wikipedia, even if it didn't have moderating staffs and everything (Wikipedia is right 95% of the time, and nearly all mistakes are corrected withen 30 minutes. For instance, I went to a completely random and barren page, addded half a sentance, and it was changed back in less than four minutes).

[Defeatist Elitist]

You already lost. The Bible states that oceans exist before light, which is factually incorrect.

How do you know that that's incorrect?

How do we know that's incorrect? How do you know that 2 + 2 = 4?

Anyway, I'm glad to see that Esau is keeping the truth on level here. :D I've missed a little too much time here.

@ Amount of Athiests. I find that on the forums I frequent, my fellow Atheists seem to be the most prolific, or at least the most seen. But of course, Atheists tend to do most of everything in a debate, being that religions don't have a leg to stand on in the first place. :P

No offense.

[Nightgraves]

@ Amount of Athiests. I find that on the forums I frequent, my fellow Atheists seem to be the most prolific, or at least the most seen. But of course, Atheists tend to do most of everything in a debate, being that religions don't have a leg to stand on in the first place. :P

No offense.

Nah, that's because I doubt there are any theologists here XD. If they didn't have a leg to stand on, this guys will be jobless :/

[Mr. Sirius]

That's the thing about faith, it's believing without seeing.

If you're going to defend religion (Christianity), please do so properly. You miss the text that states that "Faith...is the evidence of things not seen." Belief is an extension of faith; an action already designated by one's thinking pattern.

Thanks.

It's because it totally lacks evidence, and it contradicts what is reasonable and logical.

Thanks for volunteering.

According to the laws of aerodynamics, bumblebees shouldn't be able to fly. Yet, they can. Please, if you can, reason that out.

Edited November 23, 2008 by Mr. Sirius

[Leonri]

According to the laws of aerodynamics, bumblebees shouldn't be able to fly. Yet, they can. Please, if you can, reason that out.

These kind of "facts" appear from time to time, mainly from smart people not thinking, or physicists messing around with biology. I'm not familiar with this one, but a similar incident occurred when it was "proved" kangaroos cannot jump.

Kangaroos weigh around 70 kilos, and the guy measured the energy needed to lift this weight 2 feet into the air, a couple of hundred times a day. The figure turned out to be far larger than a 'roos daily intake, which obviously means they cannot jump. Or does it? The math fails to take into account the structure of a kangaroos body. The legs act a giant spring, and the tail and head bend downwards at the height of each jump, which serves to recycle most of the energy back into the next jump. The energy used is a fraction of the enrgy needed to simply lift and drop them.

AS I said Iam not familiar with the bumblebee case, but I imagine it to be something similar. It is neither faulty laws of aerodynamics or magical bees. Just a simple oversight ;)

[Kintenbo]

If you're going to defend religion (Christianity), please do so properly. You miss the text that states that "Faith...is the evidence of things not seen." Belief is an extension of faith; an action already designated by one's thinking pattern.

I was just replying to Leonri's question for the fun of it. I have no intention on proving who's right or wrong, just saying why I believe it. No need to take me overly seriously. I could really care less if somebody has an argument against what I said in that post.

[Esau of Isaac]

You missed the point then. It's the message, not the facts. It isn't a history book either.

No, it's definitely the facts. Were it just a message to live a better life, it would not be built around the idea of worshiping a God and following its rules.

The message is important, but to say that the book wasn't written as though being the word of a believed to be God is absolute madness.

How do you know that that's incorrect?

Because oceans were formed long after the beginning of the Sun, by vapors in the solar system, some of them left over from the Sun's formation.

What, were you actually thinking that the Earth possessed Oceans before light, or before land? Really?

According to the laws of aerodynamics, bumblebees shouldn't be able to fly. Yet, they can. Please, if you can, reason that out.

Every single time I read this myth, I kick a puppy.

This entire idea rose from a man in the 30s who examined the bee's wings, expanded to our size, and said that the bee's flight would not work effectively if applied to our form of aeronautics, because we utilize fixed-wing flight. Notice how a bee doesn't, and indeed operates on a fundamentally separate means of locomotion?

The only thing that the analysis proved (which you should have paid attention to, before using it in a debate) is that bees are incapable of gliding with their wings in the same fashion as normal planes.

Edited November 23, 2008 by Esau of Isaac

[Nightgraves]

1. No, it's definitely the facts. Were it just a message to live a better life, it would not be built around the idea of worshiping a God and following its rules.

The message is important, but to say that the book wasn't written as though being the word of a believed to be God is absolute madness.

-

2. Because oceans were formed long after the beginning of the Sun, by vapors in the solar system, some of them left over from the Sun's formation.

What, were you actually thinking that the Earth possessed Oceans before light, or before land? Really?

Every single time I read this myth, I kick a puppy.

-

3. This entire idea rose from a man in the 30s who examined the bee's wings, expanded to our size, and said that the bee's flight would not work effectively if applied to our form of aeronautics, because we utilize fixed-wing flight. Notice how a bee doesn't, and indeed operates on a fundamentally separate means of locomotion?

The only thing that the analysis proved (which you should have paid attention to, before using it in a debate) is that bees are incapable of gliding with their wings in the same fashion as normal planes.

1. You just say that ithout explanation. Could you expand please?

2. This part is irrelevant with the discussion formed in point one... I won't play a vicious circle.

3. I think he was stating a point. Not everything that seems logical works, like quantum physics.

[Esau of Isaac]

1. You just say that ithout explanation. Could you expand please?

If it were a book of mere morals, without being stated as the word of God, then why would God be present at all?

Like, do you have any idea how many morals there are in the Bible, and how disgusting some of them are? If you invalidate the existence of a deity and still accept the word of the book as a valid source of morality, then you are in very, very deep water.

In addition, why are there morals in the Bible that relate to God if the book is not to be taken as the word of God by those who write it? Why would accepting a false being be the highest rule of it, if it's wrong? It doesn't make sense.

3. I think he was stating a point. Not everything that seems logical works, like quantum physics.

Stating a point or not, he made a factual error by relating a point that so many believe to be true but is false.

And what do you mean by quantum physics?

[Nightgraves]

If it were a book of mere morals, without being stated as the word of God, then why would God be present at all?

Like, do you have any idea how many morals there are in the Bible, and how disgusting some of them are? If you invalidate the existence of a deity and still accept the word of the book as a valid source of morality, then you are in very, very deep water.

In addition, why are there morals in the Bible that relate to God if the book is not to be taken as the word of God by those who write it? Why would accepting a false being be the highest rule of it, if it's wrong? It doesn't make sense.

Stating a point or not, he made a factual error by relating a point that so many believe to be true but is false.

And what do you mean by quantum physics?

- It's supposed to be morals thought by God.

And where did I invalidate God? Dunno where that came out :X. Also, where did I say the ones who wrote it didn't take it as the word of God? To be honest, you are confusing me.

- Is it logical to teleport to Mars and back when crossing a street here on Earth? If you know this, then you know how much logic has flaws, and the root comes form the fact that humans aren't perfect.

[Defeatist Elitist]

- It's supposed to be morals thought by God.

And where did I invalidate God? Dunno where that came out :X. Also, where did I say the ones who wrote it didn't take it as the word of God? To be honest, you are confusing me.

- Is it logical to teleport to Mars and back when crossing a street here on Earth? If you know this, then you know how much logic has flaws, and the root comes form the fact that humans aren't perfect.

Lolololol. STRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAW MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN! And a REALLY bad one at that. I thought the bumblebee thing was bad, but come on.

How does teleporting to Mars have any sort of correlation with the application of logic? In fact, that's such a far out comparison that I'm not sure it bears enough similarity to even be called a Straw Man. What is your point?

Also, please, please, please, for your own good never use the Bible as any sort of proof in your argument. There are so many utterly laughable passages in it.

[Esau of Isaac]

- It's supposed to be morals thought by God.

And where did I invalidate God? Dunno where that came out :X. Also, where did I say the ones who wrote it didn't take it as the word of God? To be honest, you are confusing me.

You stated it's the message, and that the book is not one of facts. Why should we accept the message if the events did not occur? In other words, if you are fine with taking Noah's Ark as a metaphor, then why not God? Why not just take the entirety of the book, all of the morals, stories, and the image itself, and assume that the book itself is just a metaphor of what people will do when they desire a God to exist?

In other words, when the words of the Bible start being shown as false, the veracity of the book itself is (obviously) in deep shit.

- Is it logical to teleport to Mars and back when crossing a street here on Earth? If you know this, then you know how much logic has flaws, and the root comes form the fact that humans aren't perfect.

...What? How does logic have flaws by saying that it is not sensible to be capable of teleporting to Mars and back when crossing the street? How is it an imperfection to talk about what is not feasible?

Seriously, what?

[Defeatist Elitist]

- It's supposed to be morals thought by God.

And where did I invalidate God? Dunno where that came out :X. Also, where did I say the ones who wrote it didn't take it as the word of God? To be honest, you are confusing me.

See this is the problem with the Bible. It is APPARENTLY written by God, or by his command at least, right? But He's not really around to explain it, and he doesn't cite sources. So it either has to be taken as a work of Fiction (in which case nothing in it can be considered true, and the entire thing is just message), or non fiction, in which case everything in it is stated as fact.

Basically, because the author isn't around to tell us, and there are no sources given, you have two options.

Say that the Bible is ENTIRELY factual, with no metaphors. (which is so wrong it breaks me)

OR

Admit that parts of the Bible are metaphor. If they are, then maybe God is a metaphor too, and doesn't exist at all.

Basically, by saying that the Bible is a book not of facts but of messages, you also say that God is just another message in it, and that his existence isn't fact.

So, to re-iterate, using the Bible in a discussion is silly.

[Nightgraves]

Lolololol. STRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAW MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN! And a REALLY bad one at that. I thought the bumblebee thing was bad, but come on.

How does teleporting to Mars have any sort of correlation with the application of logic? In fact, that's such a far out comparison that I'm not sure it bears enough similarity to even be called a Straw Man. What is your point?

Also, please, please, please, for your own good never use the Bible as any sort of proof in your argument. There are so many utterly laughable passages in it.

Did you even read where and to what the mars thing related to?

I haven't even mentioned nothing that's written in the bible for the present argument, whatsoever...

1. You stated it's the message, and that the book is not one of facts. Why should we accept the message if the events did not occur? In other words, if you are fine with taking Noah's Ark as a metaphor, then why not God? Why not just take the entirety of the book, all of the morals, stories, and the image itself, and assume that the book itself is just a metaphor of what people will do when they desire a God to exist?

In other words, when the words of the Bible start being shown as false, the veracity of the book itself is (obviously) in deep shit.

2. ...What? How does logic have flaws by saying that it is not sensible to be capable of teleporting to Mars and back when crossing the street? How is it an imperfection to talk about what is not feasible?

Seriously, what?

1. Because the intent of the book is for a way of living? You are free to take it as you wish anyways, never tried to sway you ;).

2. Somehow, despite not wanting it I must add, I felt you were going to fall for this one.

Your and my logic will clearly state that the mars thing is stupid, albeit in quantum physics it says there is a really small chance it can occur.

It's just as with electrons. Example:

A ---------B----------C

An electron in point A may appear at point C without passing through point B. Logic says that is impossible- yet it is true.

The point is: Logic can be flawed, since we are imperfect.

See this is the problem with the Bible. It is APPARENTLY written by God, or by his command at least, right? But He's not really around to explain it, and he doesn't cite sources. So it either has to be taken as a work of Fiction (in which case nothing in it can be considered true, and the entire thing is just message), or non fiction, in which case everything in it is stated as fact.

Basically, because the author isn't around to tell us, and there are no sources given, you have two options.

Say that the Bible is ENTIRELY factual, with no metaphors. (which is so wrong it breaks me)

OR

Admit that parts of the Bible are metaphor. If they are, then maybe God is a metaphor too, and doesn't exist at all.

Basically, by saying that the Bible is a book not of facts but of messages, you also say that God is just another message in it, and that his existence isn't fact.

So, to re-iterate, using the Bible in a discussion is silly.

First of, why it can be a combination of what you say? Please note that I'm not saying that's the case, but I point out that you make it look as if it is a two option thing.

Also, I again point out- I haven't even mentioned nothing written or inside the Bible in all this discussion XD.

And God or no God, aren't the commandemts good by themselves? Just to place something.

-------

Disclaimer: I can be what you call, a non-practitioner Catholic, which mistrusts the church in some ways. I simply believe in being a better person and that there is a higher being.

I do not take the Bible literally, btw. Just to clarify, since some people aren't getting it.

What I often see is that people often judge, argue, and/or think about God in very "human" way. If something is omnipotent, how can you even understand it? It's like lighting an infinite wall- can you see it all?