Do you believe in God?

[Exorcet]

I will ask for probably the 10th time, why can't we have a religion thread/bible/whatever thread and keep this junk out of the "do you believe in god" thread. No way and I know why, I've brought up many different topics away from religion and that makes most atheists uncomfortable because, quite frankly, it's easier for you to just make silly jokes about a book that has no baring on the true debate.

If you want to steer the discussion from the Bible, get involved. You're not the only one speaking on the theist side. Most of the people who are for God don't seem to mind debating the Bible, so it's going to come up.

 

[arora]

Please explain in detail exactly which of those points don't exist in all three Abrahamic religions and why.

That is all my post was covering.

Why do you keep thinking I'm disagreeing with something I am not?

That you have attempted to make it a bigger issue than that is something you would have to expand on, not me.

You are wrong about what the books say about creation, simple.

So the books of the bible regarding creation don't cover god creating the Earth or man? Given that's all I have in this conversation said in that regard I fail to see the mistake I have made.

As such I would ask that you clarify the matter.

It's a big mistake that lots of people make, it's usually just a passing irk to me as I don't really want you to believe one thing or the other, but you use a misconception to make fun of other people, that bothers me after a while is all.

I'm not sure what good it would do for me to start a bible study on gtp tbh LOL If you really want to know, you could read and study and such. I'm not shying away mind you, just seems silly.

Oh and stop double posting.

Yeah sorry for that, I composed the post and then saw that one response and decided to pull a quicky, my bad.

 

[niky]

Wow completely false! If you think they are built on the same manuscripts you have never studied either religion.

Oh, the irony.

 

[Scaff]

Why do you keep thinking I'm disagreeing with something I am not?

Well given that I don't appear to be alone in that regard I would suggest that its because you are not being clear in what you are attempting to say.

You are wrong about what the books say about creation, simple.

Then for the second time of asking explain exactly why, because it would seem that we have read rather different versions of what is supposed to be the same text.

It's a big mistake that lots of people make, it's usually just a passing irk to me as I don't really want you to believe one thing or the other, but you use a misconception to make fun of other people, that bothers me after a while is all.

I've not made fun of anyone with this at all, I have simply used it as one part of a clear example of the common origins of the main Abrahamic religions.

I'm not sure what good it would do for me to start a bible study on gtp tbh LOL If you really want to know, you could read and study and such. I'm not shying away mind you, just seems silly.

I have to be honest, that's exactly what it looks like from here.

I'm off to sleep now but I look forward to seeing the creation story in a new light.

 

[arora]

Indeed the same god or concept of the same god, hard to see why there is a dispute there.

How in the hell did you miss this?

Common now, I've never argued once that the three where basically not the same, not once.

As for whatever it is you think I am dodging, I am not. No where in the book of Genesis does it say Adam and Eve where the only people(it's all about creating a blood line). No where does it say that that is the creation of earth(I've told you that countless times before)

Look, if you really want a lesson I'll prepare one, I have the feeling it would fall on deaf ears and would be way more effort on my part then it is worth, but I will do it.

It would be so much easier for a man of your intellect to simply read the book. Seriously. But you could look at it this way if it helps, have you ever read a novel, maybe several times, maybe studied it in a college writing class? Maybe then gone to the movies and said, noooooooooooo, wtf is this? It's kinda like that.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

If you want to steer the discussion from the Bible, get involved. You're not the only one speaking on the theist side. Most of the people who are for God don't seem to mind debating the Bible, so it's going to come up.

I'm sorry I missed this post.

You are joking right? I know you have been in this thread a long time, as have I. You don't recall all the things I've brought up not regarding the bible or religion? I had so many cool things to discuss, all blown by because atheists find it more fun to simply debate religion, serliousleley.

 

[Exorcet]

I'm sorry I missed this post.

You are joking right? I know you have been in this thread a long time, as have I. You don't recall all the things I've brought up not regarding the bible or religion? I had so many cool things to discuss, all blown by because atheists find it more fun to simply debate religion, serliousleley.

I'm not dismissing what you've said. But you haven't said it recently (and honestly, I don't remember all of it). Like I said, you're not the only one speaking on the side of God. When someone comes in defending or promoting their religion, there is a high chance that religion is what the debate will focus on.

The last dozen or so pages haven't been completely centered on religion anyway, and even in the discussions focusing on a particular religion there have been points that argue against God in general, not just God of religion X.

If you're frustrated that the topic keeps pulling towards religion because it bores you, I suppose I can understand, but I don't think you'll change that from the sidelines. And I can't do anything about until I have someone to argue against who isn't using a religion argument.

 

[McLaren]

No religion is better or more correct than any other, so why have any at all?

Because religion is the crux of war.

Without religion, going to war would be a heck of a lot harder. To make your people fear the people of another country, you need to make them appear evil and dangerous. Using religion is the easiest way to accomplish that.

If war is ever going to end, religion would have to end first.

Because it gives a large portion of people around the world various "guidelines" as to how they should live life & do so happily? Many Christians lead what they believe are healthy lifestyles by obeying the Ten Commandments. Buddhists do so by following the 3 concepts: Samsara, Karma, & Rebirth.

The details of the religion is where we all won't agree, but as I've seen, most religions still offer these "guidelines" to a happy life in some form or another & many people go about doing so.

I don't think the issue is with religions themselves, but the "leaders" of the religions & how they twist the words of them to suit their own needs. That they use the words to portray hate towards another group when sometimes, there are verses that say not to do that.

 

[arora]

I'm not dismissing what you've said. But you haven't said it recently (and honestly, I don't remember all of it). Like I said, you're not the only one speaking on the side of God. When someone comes in defending or promoting their religion, there is a high chance that religion is what the debate will focus on.

Not sure I speak on the side of god, I speak on the side of man's most sacred right. I'll draw up an old quote I've used way to many times for the new to the thread I guess...

Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that being a natural and unalienable right. To guard a man's house as his castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact faith, can give no title to invade a man's conscience, which is more sacred than his castle, or to withhold from it that debt of protection for which the public faith is pledged by the very nature and original conditions of the social pact.

If you're frustrated that the topic keeps pulling towards religion because it bores you, I suppose I can understand, but I don't think you'll change that from the sidelines. And I can't do anything about until I have someone to argue against who isn't using a religion argument.

Maybe I'll bring some of the old stuff back up, you could comb over the thread if you wish, not that you would but it's all there.

My main point will always be that the bible cannot prove nor disprove a god.

 

[Scaff]

No where in the book of Genesis does it say Adam and Eve where the only people(it's all about creating a blood line).

You mean in exactly the same way that nowhere in my post does it say that Adam and Eve were the only people!

I simply listed a small number of things that all three texts contain, at no point did I state a position one way or another in regard to the total number of people. What you have done is assigned a position to me that I have not even come close to stating.

No where does it say that that is the creation of earth(I've told you that countless times before)

First you haven't told me that countless times.

Then we have this:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Source - http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1&version=KJ21

So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.

Now that from the KJ version, but you can reference any version of the bible and it says the same. Now that can be interprited in three ways (most commonly):

As a statement that the cosmos had an absolute beginning (In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth).
As a statement describing the condition of the world when God began creating (When in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was untamed and shapeless).
Taking all of Genesis 1:2 as background information (When in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, the earth being untamed and shapeless, God said, Let there be light!).[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_1:1#Analysis_and_translation

Almost entirely depending on how you view the words create and earth, however the commonly accepted view is the literal one, that god created everything (the heavens and earth). Alternate interpretations do little to help. It is possible that it means god didn't create the earth at the same time (i.e. its an earlier work) that however would be a moot point as it still means he created it) or that god didn't create the earth. That however raises the even bigger issue of who did.

The whole thing is all down to interpretation and translation, and given that none of it can be proven I find it rather ironic that you can state with such certainty that your interpretation is the right one and that all others are wrong. Given that over the centuries people who have dedicated their entire lives to theological study have failed to prove a definitive interpretation, your claim seems more than a little bold.

The interesting thing is that all I have done is present one interpretation of the passages (the commonly accepted one) I have not elevated it to a special position or claimed it as the only correct interpretation (and therefore not precluded other interpretations), nor stated that I would be unwilling to discuss them. These are all positions you have chosen (incorrectly) to assign to me.

My main point will always be that the bible cannot prove nor disprove a god.

And yet you are able to state that certain interpretations of the bible are wrong?

You are wrong about what the books say about creation, simple.

Given that you acknowledge that the bible does not contain proof of god, it more than reasonable to conclude that it also doesn't contain proof of his actions (as that would be proof of his existence), I'm sure you would also agree that the Old Testament is not written in its original language and has been subject to many translations and amendments of the last few thousand years. Now the Torah is still in its original language, but Jewish scholars generally agree that mistakes do occur when its copied - just not to the same degree as the bible).

Yet despite all the above you are able to categorically state which interpretation is correct and which one is not?

What exactly do you use to show which interpretation is correct and which one is not?

 

[Gonales]

Because it gives a large portion of people around the world various "guidelines" as to how they should live life & do so happily? Many Christians lead what they believe are healthy lifestyles by obeying the Ten Commandments. Buddhists do so by following the 3 concepts: Samsara, Karma, & Rebirth.

Yes, but the basic commandments get thrown out of the window so easily, and most of the bible has altered over time as well. Priests get their knowledge from the bible too, so what to believe? A book that is most likely
untrue, or a guy that is reading a book that is untrue? There is no way to find out what the originals said, I guess. And if people would read the original by any chance, the time-gap makes it practically impossible to live to those standards.

Hence, my opinion: Religion is close to useless.

I don't think the issue is with religions themselves, but the "leaders" of the religions & how they twist the words of them to suit their own needs. That they use the words to portray hate towards another group when sometimes, there are verses that say not to do that.

The leaders, and the people that changed the meaning of the religion over time. Thinking they did a good thing...

And the people that think they know what the book means, when they don't.

 

[fitftw]

The books are meaningless. The powers that be want you to accept these books for the sole purpose of striking fear into you so that you are easy to mold and control. Religion is a cult like any other. This website even is a cult, but at least we have no hidden agenda to fulfill.

 

[niky]

No, a cult may be based on religion, but not all religions are cults. Cults are, by definiton, small religious groups. Sects are bigger religious groups. Denominations are even bigger religious groups.

Given the number of members at GTPlanet, I'd say we qualify at least as a sect.

 

[McLaren]

Yes, but the basic commandments get thrown out of the window so easily, and most of the bible has altered over time as well. Priests get their knowledge from the bible too, so what to believe? A book that is most likely
untrue, or a guy that is reading a book that is untrue? There is no way to find out what the originals said, I guess. And if people would read the original by any chance, the time-gap makes it practically impossible to live to those standards.

And yet where did I say anything like this?

The Ten Commandments aren't an impossible standard to live by. Most of them are straight forward & thus, are guidelines many people choose to live by. I already acknowledged the rest of the bible in the rest of my post.

Hence, my opinion: Religion is close to useless.

Have to disagree there because you & fit are lumping all religions together. Hinduism & Buddhism are far from useless religions if you study the core of their beliefs.

The leaders, and the people that changed the meaning of the religion over time. Thinking they did a good thing...

And the people that think they know what the book means, when they don't.

Thanks for just elaborating on what I said.

The books are meaningless. The powers that be want you to accept these books for the sole purpose of striking fear into you so that you are easy to mold and control. Religion is a cult like any other. This website even is a cult, but at least we have no hidden agenda to fulfill.

[insert tinfoil hat pic here]

Again, you & Gonales are too busy lumping all religion together. If you have studied any of the teachings of Buddhism, you'd find that it preaches against the exact same thing you were complaining about with the world.

 

[fitftw]

Yes, Buddhism doesn't teach you that God will punish you if you're homosexual etc...

But I don't care about Buddhism. I don't want to be known as being a part of ANY religious group, good or bad. I want my name to be as far removed from all religions as possible. Religion has caused more evil and hatred than it has done any good for societies. Whatever good it has done, it has done ten times more evil.

Buddhists to me are on the same level as atheists. Both offer an alternative to Godly religions, but both are still a problem because they are opposition for Godly religions. I'd rather be nothing at all. Nobody can hate me or want to kill me for not being labeled as anything.

 

[Kingland093]

Adam & Eve had two sons.. TWO SONS.
Who made the rest of the babies with Eve?

read Genesis, It says that they had other children

 

[PR1VATEJ0KER]

read Genesis, It says that they had other children

You're right,
I forgot about Seth & Genesis 5:4 says he had sons and daughters for 800 years after Seth!

I guess the inevitable incest reduced our life expectancy 10 fold. :'(

Because it gives a large portion of people around the world various "guidelines" as to how they should live life & do so happily?

This is a cop out,

No doubt there are Good Religious people.
But without Religion they would be good people regardless.

I contend that it is just as easy to teach a person to be reasonable,
as it is to teach them old stories from a book and fear of an invisible deity that will not communicate.

 

[Scaff]

Buddhists to me are on the same level as atheists. Both offer an alternative to Godly religions, but both are still a problem because they are opposition for Godly religions.
I'd rather be nothing at all. Nobody can hate me or want to kill me for not being labeled as anything.

I wouldn't be so sure about that:

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

Given that the Khmer Rouge would kill people for wearing glasses or a watch your not ensuring anything.

 

[DK]

No religion is better or more correct than any other, so why have any at all?

Because religion is the crux of war.

Without religion, going to war would be a heck of a lot harder. To make your people fear the people of another country, you need to make them appear evil and dangerous. Using religion is the easiest way to accomplish that.

If war is ever going to end, religion would have to end first.

Forgive me if I seem like an apologist for religion, but religion isn't the sole reason for going to war. There's also resources.

 

[Carbonox]

One thing that's bugging me about Christianity is the entire story of Noah's Ark. It simply makes zero sense to me.

1. How did Noah exactly manage to get two of each type of animal into the ark, considering there were most likely some only living in far-off lands? Having no quick method of transport certainly didn't help either, and don't even get me started about herding the animals for a distance like that.

2. Where did the animals and people in the ark get all their food if none of them ate other animals?

3. The story says that the only people in the ark were Noah, his wife, Noah's sons and their wives. Thus, if they were the sole survivors of the flood, their own kids would have had to reproduce with each other to continue the race. Thus, it would make all of us actually inbred. Same goes for the animals - if there's gonna be a flood, you've gotta get four of each, two couples, or else all of the future offspring turns out inbred.

 

[DK]

Perhaps Noah had a TARDIS?

 

[Liquid]

There were seven of some animals, two of others. Depends whether they were kosher or not.

Again, sense.

 

[orimarc]

Given the number of members at GTPlanet, I'd say we qualify at least as a sect.

Have we built the shrine to Famine yet? And who's in charge of buying 5000 white robes with the GTP logo on them?

 

[McLaren]

Yes, Buddhism doesn't teach you that God will punish you if you're homosexual etc...

First off, Buddhism does not have a God. Gautama did not believe in creator deity. Buddhism is about sanctuary within' the universe & nature.

But I don't care about Buddhism. I don't want to be known as being a part of ANY religious group, good or bad. I want my name to be as far removed from all religions as possible. Religion has caused more evil and hatred than it has done any good for societies. Whatever good it has done, it has done ten times more evil.

Buddhism does not create evil & to most of the world, has never directly been involved in holy wars. Buddhism teachings do not generally condone the act of war, but because it is based up principles, there are exceptions if a Buddhist is forced to partake.

But, there you go lumping all religions together, anyway.

Buddhists to me are on the same level as atheists. Both offer an alternative to Godly religions, but both are still a problem because they are opposition for Godly religions. I'd rather be nothing at all. Nobody can hate me or want to kill me for not being labeled as anything.

Religious Extremists do not care if you are labeled as anything or not. You are either with them or against them.

This is a cop out,

No doubt there are Good Religious people.
But without Religion they would be good people regardless.

I contend that it is just as easy to teach a person to be reasonable,
as it is to teach them old stories from a book and fear of an invisible deity that will not communicate.

I did not intend to post it as a cop out, so my apologies. I merely posted it as answer as to why some people like having a religion at all, not that every religious person follows one to be a good person or anything like that.

 

[fitftw]

As long as religion exists, there will be extremists.

I'm willing to bet there are a few Buddhist extremists out there, as weird as that sounds. Some people take their beliefs/faiths a bit too seriously. That's why I have no faiths or beliefs.

 

[Carbonox]

There were seven of some animals, two of others. Depends whether they were kosher or not.

Again, sense.

So, that leaves us with a big pack of inbred humans and pigs at least

 

[xxxdisciplexxx]

I see a lot of comments on the bible and slavery so I will offer this
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/02/02/feedback-bible-slavery

 

[homeforsummer]

That's why I have no faiths or beliefs.

Apart from believing the world is out to get you, apparently.

 

[nielsenman2]

God sent th e animals. God also sent them food. Noahs sons wives were someone elses but then there would be inbreds after some point. God made a miracle were we are all not inbreds.

 

[fitftw]

Apart from believing the world is out to get you, apparently.

Not the world, but the governments of the world, yes. Just look at how great these governments have treated people in the last few thousand years.

Think about this: If guns were made to kill people, and the governments of the world purchase and use more guns than anyone else, then is the government the #1 killer of people? Why have a government in that case?

As far as there being a God, either there is or there isn't. Why waste life living in fear? Why waste life denying people of rights you would not want denied for yourself just because a book told you to? There is a major lack of empathy in religion, of putting yourself in another person's shoes.

Oh and about inbreeding/incest. Most, if not ALL of us, have incest in our ancestry.

 

[Liquid]

If guns were made to kill people...

Don't even go there. Don't drag that argument into this thread.

We've had plenty of gun talk in the Opinions forum recently. Take it up in the appropriate threads.