Do you believe in God?

[Pako]

I tried praying to God, but all I recieved was his answering machine.

Everyone knows you press 7 at the tone to bypass the answering machine to get the Jewish Carpenter.....

 

[TheCracker]

Bod owns Zod.

Plod beats Bod.

 

[sn00pie]

Plod beats Bod.

NO!

Todd beats Plod and Bod.

 

[TheCracker]

But... You can't argue with a Mod.

 

[sn00pie]

But... You can't argue with a Mod.

I AM A MOD!!!

Oh crap.

I'm a mod.

Guys, no more off topic posting please - and stop it with the childish titles and avatars please.

 

[V1P3R]

Too late?

Well.. to make it more on topic I'm not going to church because I work at that time.

 

[xXSilencerXx]

I believe in God. I believe the creation story and I believe in Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

Question: Are you guys who say you believe that god created the universe and life serious?

100% Why wouldn't I be? Because alot of people, including some on this board, think I'm stupid and ignorant for believing that?


EDIT: A good book for you guys or gals who don't believe in god to check out would be "The Case for Christ", it's written by an atheist journalist who went around interviewing top Faith Scholars I guess you could call them. It's a very good book that I think anybody would enjoy reading who's interested in some of the biggest questions about how true Christrianity is.

 

[Mrs. Famine]

I'm from the church of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. It's true, I have a badge on the back of my car

 

[Stevisiov]

What does 'invisable pink' look like?

On topic, no i dont beleive there is such thing as a god.

 

[Sureboss]

Similar to invisible pink, probably.

 

[Rykon Zero]

I just got yelled at for my Cyborg Pirate Ninja Jesus T-shirt.

 

[Stevisiov]

Similar to invisible pink, probably.

Oh funnay!

 

[Joey D]

EDIT: A good book for you guys or gals who don't believe in god to check out would be "The Case for Christ", it's written by an atheist journalist who went around interviewing top Faith Scholars I guess you could call them. It's a very good book that I think anybody would enjoy reading who's interested in some of the biggest questions about how true Christrianity is.

I didn't really care for that book that much, it was fairly vague and open ended on many things, mostly biology. He says abiogenesis isn't possible without the assistance of a creator, somehow I don't buy that when I look at everything biology has presented me.

I don't think Lee Strobel is an atheist either, I'm pretty sure he's a Christian apologic.

 

[Keef]

I don't believe in a traditional God. But the word god describes a supreme being, ruler of the universe, originator of everything, etc. And the word being means "the fact of existing". Therefore, the physical laws of the universe are my god. Personally, I believe they are also God, but that's one heck of a debate. As far as I know, the known laws of physics are the omniscient ruler of the universe.

 

[tfujiwara]

All I have to say about this thread is that, God IS real
Think about it.

i dont know if this sounds dum but...
This planet just had soil, water, lava, and rocks once. And look at US we are meat bones and blood.Where did we come from? God created us but Who created god? I dont know. But what I do know is that HE IS REAL because, when I was 13 years old I prayed and cried to God when I asked him If he could give me a girlfriend.Two weeks later I found out that this 16 year old girls likes me! its true I'm honest.She looked like 13 but she was really 16.I only had 2 dates with her but she was not my girlfriend because I said it would be better if we were just friends.Then I had found my perfect girlfriend who was 13 just like me.

Thank you GOD!

I think I messed up. On the ^underline^. I dint mean US as if in United states I meant it as in, us.
Q= Example:Who did this?
A= Example:Us, we did.
You get me right?

 

[Rykon Zero]

No, I still have no idea what the hell you're trying to say.

 

[Keef]

He can't make the connection between chemical reactions and we humans. He'll figure it out in chemistry class.

 

[Skynyrd1977]

Then how do you explain Al Gore?

"Evidence", I'm not sure you understand what is meant by the word.

Sure. "Evidence in its broadest sense includes anything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion." (Wiki)

There are also varying definitions... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

We have the same evididence and probably more of it for all the miracles done by Christ as we do for the innocent deaths resulting from the Crusades and the Inquisition (written documentation of eyewitness testimony).

Yea, seeing heretics burned at the stake will do that.

Yes, it would in some cases, but that is a broad brush statement that does not apply to the majority of historical scientists. Consider that 11 of the 12 apostles who walked side by side with Jesus were also tortured and put to death in attempts to change their testimony. None of them did. Why would they suffer excruciating pain and die for a lie?

In a totally non-substantive way. I commend religious people who question their beliefs. But if they questioned their beliefs to the degree that scientists question their findings, they would not have faith.

And I commend non-beleivers for the same. 👍 It's a big decision and deserves some homework. However, the last statement is not accurate, many people decide to believe after much study, and the books are countless. Consider below...

I don't think Lee Strobel is an atheist either, I'm pretty sure he's a Christian apologic.

Lee Strobel was an aethiest, and also a Law graduate from Harvard who eventualy became an investigative journalist and legal editor for the Chicago Tribune. In an attempt to prove his wife wrong (she had decided that Christ was the Son of God (or was it Glod, no...Bod, er, uh, Zod..., or Plod? Mod? no..thats right, it was God ) he started investigating and in the end concluded that he was wrong and she was right.

 

[Joey D]

Lee Strobel was an aethiest, and also a Law graduate from Harvard who eventualy became an investigative journalist and legal editor for the Chicago Tribune. In an attempt to prove his wife wrong (she had decided that Christ was the Son of God (or was it Glod, no...Bod, er, uh, Zod..., or Plod? Mod? no..thats right, it was God ) he started investigating and in the end concluded that he was wrong and she was right.

He went about it the wrong way though and asked the wrong questions. He work is seriously full of many holes. I mistook the book he wrote though, I've read The Case for a Creator which is basically a couple hundred pages of him babbling on without knowing biology.

However, after reading up on The Case for Christ it appears it more of the same biased babble that doesn't really present a convincing argument. He only interviewed those who support his ideas, mainly evangelicals and a Biblical archaeologist whom I find to be a bit off in the field. How can you present a case for something without interviewing those opposed to it? That's not making a case at all, but rather just a big long research paper with only sources that agree with you. It makes me laugh that he was a journalist at one point.

Earl Doherty wrote a response to the book entitled Challenging the Verdict: A Cross-examination of Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ", which I have not read or really researched so I can not make adequate comments on it.

If you are going to write a book either for religion or against it you better cover all your bases as best you can. I don't feel Strobel has done this. I'm not really surprised though as most religious writers tend to be horrifically biased about thing and not even bother to review the facts presented to us by science.

 

[Touring Mars]

I've had "The Case For a Creator" recommended to me before, too, but it was painfully apparent that the guy who recommended it to me simply couldn't address even the most basic of points I raised against his assertion that Darwinian evolution was "all lies"...

I have no problem with people who believe in God, or Jesus, and can even accept the reasons why some people believe in the supernatural (although I do not myself), but I do have a serious problem with people like Strobel who deny or ignore the most fundamental of relevant facts, such as the genetic relationships between all species which proves beyond all doubt that the evolutionary theory of universal common descent is correct.

The problem with people like Strobel is that they go too far in what they are trying to do - is it not enough to say that you accept that there is (or even could be) a God, without also demanding that people ignore the reality of their world, too? The simple fact is that most evolution deniers have no answers in the face of the evidence. What's more, theistic evolutionists prove that evolution denial is not even an obligation of the faithful... By taking the anti-evolutionist stance, however, Strobel undermines his own authority on subjects he may actually know something about - but what is clear from some of his comments available on YouTube, reality is not one of those subjects...

 

[daan]

Guys, no more off topic posting please - and stop it with the childish titles and avatars please.

Yes boss.

Do ya think I'm sexy though?

 

[Gil]

I tried praying to God, but all I recieved was his answering machine.

Just out of curiousity: Did your parent's ever say "no" to any of your requests?
God answers prayer.
He answers in his own time and in his own way.
If God said "yes" to everyone's prayer, everyone would get a winning lottery ticket, the girl/guy of their dreams, etc.
So, while you got the "answering machine", perhaps God simply said "no".

And Daan: yer cute...but you have a little way to go to get to truly sexy.

 

[Skynyrd1977]

...most religious writers tend to be horrifically biased about thing and not even bother to review the facts presented to us by science.

...but I do have a serious problem with people like Strobel who deny or ignore the most fundamental of relevant facts, such as the genetic relationships between all species which proves beyond all doubt that the evolutionary theory of universal common descent is correct.

Joey D,
Consider this though, anyone writing a book that is pro "any subject" is going to be bias towards that subject.

Touring Mars,
I think there is a whole lot of doubt about it, with some valid arguments. That other post that Famine referenced obviously wouldn't have over 5,000 posts if it was clear cut.

The interpretation of science differs between scientists much the same as the interpretation of the Bible differs between believers.

Yes boss.

Do ya think I'm sexy though?

I almost fell out of my chair laughing at that one!

 

[V1P3R]

As far as I know, the known laws of physics are the omniscient ruler of the universe.

That would be... Da Force.

 

[Joey D]

Joey D,
Consider this though, anyone writing a book that is pro "any subject" is going to be bias towards that subject.

Some are more biased than others though, he completely ignores the entire scientifically back idea.

 

[gibson]

Of course I believe in God. He's how I stay sane!

 

[Danoff]

Sure. "Evidence in its broadest sense includes anything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion." (Wiki)

There are also varying definitions... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

We have the same evididence and probably more of it for all the miracles done by Christ as we do for the innocent deaths resulting from the Crusades and the Inquisition (written documentation of eyewitness testimony).

You're confusing the colloquial/general definition of "evidence" with the scientific concept. This is a common mistake in discussions such as this, and the cause of a great deal of misunderstanding. Another commonly misunderstood word is "hypothesis", which has both a colloquial usage and a scientific meaning.

To drive my point home - what you consider "evidence" is actually only "evidence" in the general usage of the term. None of it would be considered valid scientific evidence.

Why would they suffer excruciating pain and die for a lie?

You assume they existed and that the story is accurate.

However, the last statement is not accurate, many people decide to believe after much study, and the books are countless. Consider below...

Please see my earlier statement:

Before others come in and try to argue against what I just wrote there, let me point out that it's a tautology - don't bother.

You see, this:

But if they questioned their beliefs to the degree that scientists question their findings, they would not have faith.

...is a truism. Science does not allow faith. A scientist cannot use faith in his research. Therefore, if someone questioned their beliefs the way a scientist questions his research, faith is precluded. It's inherent in the principles of scientific research.

Again, there is no arguing that statement, please do not try (again).

 

[BayConRong]

What I find interesting is that about 300 years ago we could all be hung and quartered for our “fanatical, unchristian beliefs” even in America we could have been killed, think Indians.
Galileo was threatened with death if he didn’t renounce his beliefs. Weren’t there some scientists who were outright killed for their discoveries?

 

[Pupik]

What I find interesting is that about 300 years ago we could all be hung and quartered for our “fanatical, unchristian beliefs”...

But 5000 years ago, organized religion did not exist; it was much more important to figure out how things worked for survival. Figuring those things out is how we become more and more civilized, and more important because it was the difference between living and dying (at the ripe old age of 30, in most cases). Obeying and making offerings to divine beings came secondary, if man couldn't figure somethings out such as: Why did the day get shorter? Where's the crops? and Why is it raining so much?...and wanted things to go his way.

Personally, and for the sake of self-preservation, it's still more important to figure out the concrete world around us, before delving into a realm of stories and tales which have a psychological basis, but little in the way of helping us with issues in a physical world which can be defined and explained in scientific terms.

The difficulty with mankind's issues is that the psychological realm within us is not very well understood, as it is sometimes on the fringes of pseudoscience, and a slow, lengthy, and occasionally unpredictable area to experiment with; and may take a long time to fully understand. I never feel it is a science worth abandoning, but it is an "intermediary" between the physical world and the spiritual world.

To me, God exists in something like The Force. God doesn't exist without mankind, if there's no believers, there's no God. But mankind can figure things out collectively, and we do not challenge each others' existence. I don't believe in the all-knowing, all-seeing, no-see-Him, don't-question-me, God that I learned about in Hebrew school. But as an individual and as an entire body of humanity, we can potentially, although imperfectly and slowly, become an all-knowing and all-seeing being.

 

[Joey D]

Organised religion has been around pretty much since we've evolved into humans. We have artefacts that suggest the worship of a nature god or fertility goddess going. Even then 5,000 BP is still during the Egyptian civilisation and they have a well documented religion. Religion was a huge part of early humankind's existence. Everyday activity revolved around ritual and it was all integrated with in their life.

Stonehenge was built some 5,000 BP and the leading theory on that is it had something to do with religion. People had to have a pretty organised system and had someone to obey in order to construct something like that. And there is evidence that other henges existed before it, probably all for religious purposes dating back maybe 10,000 BP.