Do you believe in God?

[CraftyLandShark]

There are slightly kookier ones - Scientology is a cracking example because although it explains why we are here, it never makes any effort to explain why Xenu or the Thetans are.

In that respect, I'd contend that the three Abrahamic religions are just as kooky. All three explain why we're here, but none explain why God is, save to say "In the beginning, there was God blah blah light and darkness blah blah blah farted matter into being blah blah". That doesn't seem any different from saying "Once upon a time, the great alien overlord Xenu slaughtered blah blah blah Thetans blah blah auditing blah".

Conclusion: God is a Thetan. All hail Xenu, slayer of worlds!

 

[CarBastard]

I have a brief notion of Budhism and Scientiology, but I don't know them quite well. Can anyone here give me a heads-up? . Would be very appreciated.

 

[Famine]

In that respect, I'd contend that the three Abrahamic religions are just as kooky.

See option 4

 

[CraftyLandShark]

See option 4

Fair enough.

 

[Dotini]

2. One of them is, and the others are derivations of it (the bad news - this would probably be the earliest one, and as far as monotheism is concerned, that's Judaism).

I certainly am not interested in contradicting the great Famine, but it is debatable that the earliest form of monotheism was Judaism.
To be considered:
early Zoroastrianism, Manichaeism, the personal religion of Akhenaten, forms of Veda, hints of it in Sumerian tablets, even certain primitive tribal beliefs in Africa, Australia and America. It may in fact be that polytheism resulted from combination of earlier monotheistic deities.

However, as I've stated earlier, I don't think any current organized religion is worth bothering with. On the other hand, I'd like to know more about the religion of even earlier peoples who were successful in adapting to the rigors of life over humongously long periods of time:
Heidelbergensis; 900,000 BC to 200,000 BC
Neanderthal; 200,000 BC to 25,000 BC
Solutreans; Euros from 35,000 BC to 10,000 BC. These are the folks who created those fabulous cave paintings with a technical virtuosity not equaled until the Renaissance. They may also have been responsible for those suggestive Venus figurines.


Respectfully submitted,
Dotini

 

[Famine]

I certainly am not interested in contradicting the great Famine, but it is debatable that the earliest form of monotheism was Judaism.
To be considered:
early Zoroastrianism, Manichaeism, the personal religion of Akhenaten, forms of Veda, hints of it in Sumerian tablets, even certain primitive tribal beliefs in Africa, Australia and America. It may in fact be that polytheism resulted from combination of earlier monotheistic deities.

Judaism predates Zoroaster - even generous dating for Zoroaster puts him near the latest bound for Judaism's origins. Vedic religion is polytheistic, being the foundation of the complex mono/poly/pantheistic Hinduism. The Sumerians would worship a snail if it had a funny-shaped shell.

The others I'm unfamiliar with, but Judaism is oft-described as one of the oldest monotheistic religions and the oldest surviving to the present day. So in terms of the oldest monotheistic religion being the most valid, Judaism gets the nod.

 

[Dotini]

So in terms of the oldest monotheistic religion being the most valid, Judaism gets the nod.

Famine, are you familiar with Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qumran? If they can be considered a library of sorts, then it is interesting that the greatest number of copies of any one "book" found was that of Enoch. I have read 1 Enoch (Ethiopic), as translated by E. Isaac, and find it the most exciting, interesting and informative of Judaic literature and testaments. I find that it adds enormous perspective to my appreciation of human creation and evolution, however pitiful or objectionable that may be. I hesitate to make reference to Enoch in these forums because it lacks currency and, like so much found in the Torah and Old Testament, is open to subjective interpretation.

Respectfully yours,
Dotini

 

[niky]

There is a God in many American traditions... but I don't know if they claim him as the God.

Hmmm... Hindu tradition is polytheistic... but I do believe that they consider them all aspects of the same GodHead, Brahma.

Of course, they consider the soul as part of Brahma, too.

Sort of like Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land" (which, like Hinduism, also seems obsessed with sex, though is not as detailed as the Kama Sutra), which carries the ssomewhat hippie catch-phrase: "Thou art God".

 

[Sam48]

Judaism predates Zoroaster - even generous dating for Zoroaster puts him near the latest bound for Judaism's origins. Vedic religion is polytheistic, being the foundation of the complex mono/poly/pantheistic Hinduism. The Sumerians would worship a snail if it had a funny-shaped shell.

The others I'm unfamiliar with, but Judaism is oft-described as one of the oldest monotheistic religions and the oldest surviving to the present day. So in terms of the oldest monotheistic religion being the most valid, Judaism gets the nod.

So you could put christianity as the #2 answer. Christianity (Catholicism) is basically a copy of judaism minus the fact that the savior had already come. But non the less, they both worshipped the same God, so it doesn't make a huge difference.

 

[Danoff]

So you could put christianity as the #2 answer. Christianity (Catholicism) is basically a copy of judaism minus the fact that the savior had already come. But non the less, they both worshipped the same God, so it doesn't make a huge difference.

New Testament vs. Old Testament makes a huge difference. It's presumably the reason that you aren't trying to kill the infidels.

 

[Famine]

So you could put christianity as the #2 answer.

When it comes to "Right" and "Wrong", second doesn't cut it.

Christianity (Catholicism) is basically a copy of judaism minus the fact that the savior had already come. But non the less, they both worshipped the same God, so it doesn't make a huge difference.

Any difference is a huge difference. Try writing out the entire genome of a human being, then changing one base-pair. The gap between right and wrong can really be that small.

 

[niky]

New Testament vs. Old Testament makes a huge difference. It's presumably the reason that you aren't trying to kill the infidels.

Difficult. The Canaanites are all dead.

 

[allent2]

 

[CraftyLandShark]

A "University" that's also a Limited Liability Corporation? Erm, that's ... interesting.

Luckily, his arguments are so absurd that we don't really have to chuckle about their source. I did anyway, though.

 

[Joel]

That guy in the video is a freaking moron. What I want to know, is why he believes it, even if he says there's no way to prove it.

 

[Detroitbb]

I only believe in me.

 

[Skynyrd1977]

A "University" that's also a Limited Liability Corporation? Erm, that's ... interesting.

Luckily, his arguments are so absurd that we don't really have to chuckle about their source. I did anyway, though.

That guy in the video is a freaking moron. What I want to know, is why he believes it, even if he says there's no way to prove it.

Why is he a moron? Please explain. I undersand your question, but is he a moron because you don't agree? I listened to his arguments and I don't see how they are absurd. They made sense.

If you really want to know why he believes it, call him, or write him, or visit his website and read what he says about it.

 

[Touring Mars]

I think you're right to point out that this guy isn't a "moron" as such, but I still disagree with his general point - what he is saying is that God is (somehow) incapable of convincing everyone of his existence, therefore there will always be unbelievers. What he fails to address, however, is the slight issue of how God is seemingly incapable of convincing individual unbelievers, such as myself for example, despite the fact that my criteria for conversion are fairly easy to meet - especially for a supposedly all-powerful being like God.

---

On a seperate note, I reckon it is worht pointing out that belief in God does cut both ways. When you are faced with losing a close relative to cancer at the age of 35 (who has two young kids), as an atheist I have no reason whatsoever to accuse God of being an evil, heartless, cruel bastard.

 

[Joel]

I shouldn't have called him a moron, that was immature. However, I would like to know why he DOES believe in God, because it sounds like he does.

 

[Skynyrd1977]

...What he fails to address, however, is the slight issue of how God is seemingly incapable of convincing individual unbelievers, such as myself for example, despite the fact that my criteria for conversion are fairly easy to meet - especially for a supposedly all-powerful being like God.

I wouldn't say he is incapable, He just hasn't done it yet.

 

[CraftyLandShark]

I wouldn't say he is incapable, He just hasn't done it yet.

Yes, but why? I'm with TM - an omnipotent God should have no problem overwhelming my petty mortal standards of evidence. He seemed to have no problem sending messages directly to his 'flock' in antiquity, so now that we have sufficiently advanced as a species to develop an analytical view of the world around us, why's he gone so suspiciously silent?

 

[Dotini]

Yes, but why? I'm with TM - an omnipotent God should have no problem overwhelming my petty mortal standards of evidence. He seemed to have no problem sending messages directly to his 'flock' in antiquity, so now that we have sufficiently advanced as a species to develop an analytical view of the world around us, why's he gone so suspiciously silent?

Crafty, are you familiar with the events at Fatima, Portugal, during the year 1917?

Yours truly,
Dotini

 

[CraftyLandShark]

Crafty, are you familiar with the events at Fatima, Portugal, during the year 1917?

Yours truly,
Dotini

The basic claims, yes. I don't see any reason to believe them. Most of the events involved were based on the unverifiable claims of three young children, and the "Miracle of the Sun", the one event involved that had a large body of "witnesses" still offers conflicting and incredible accounts. It's worth noting as well that all in attendance generally agree that they were viewing the sun through a veil of clouds. There's a reason that your grade school teacher taught you to make an "eclipse box" to view a solar eclipse -looking directly at the sun, even eclipsed, or veiled by clouds, can do serious damage to your vision. I'd imagine this would easily account for the color and spatial distortions described by some of the witnesses. That said, even if all the accounts of the event matched up, and ultraviolet radiation weren't a likely culprit, a distorted sun that appears to change color would certainly not be the kind of evidence of God that would be neccessary to prove his existence. One is still confounded by the question of why an omnipotent god would need to confine his communication to us through what, to him, would be visual parlor tricks, and apparitions appearing only to three young children.

Given my limited knowledge of the Fatima lore, that's all I can speak to. It IS interesting to note that it involves lots of other juicy, delicious morsels of "Godliness" - cutting off one's own circulation and denying one's self water on miserably hot days as acts of penance, boiling children in vats, that sort of thing. Fun times to be had by all!

 

[Dotini]

That said, even if all the accounts of the event matched up, and ultraviolet radiation weren't a likely culprit, a distorted sun that appears to change color would certainly not be the kind of evidence of God that would be neccessary to prove his existence. One is still confounded by the question of why an omnipotent god would need to confine his communication to us through what, to him, would be visual parlor tricks, and apparitions appearing only to three young children.

Crafty, it's gratifying you have some knowledge of this amazing historical event. Even though I believe your recap of the events (which occurred over 9 months, and were witnessed by many scores of thousands, including skeptical police, doctors, and scientists ) cries out for elaboration, I won't go into that at this time. Suffice to say that far, far more was vouchsafed to humanity at Fatima than mere parlor tricks and apparitions!

In lieu of that, I would ask what you think would be adequate evidence to persuade you, personally, of God's existence? Hopefully you will not be silly but really think about this one. Still, if you want to be silly, go ahead, it's easier, and I won't really mind because this is only a small issue for me.

Also, I would question whether God (if he exists) is omnipotent. It might be entertained that God actually lacks free will, and can only do what he does do. The lion does usually not sit down with the lamb, nor a tiger change his stripes (except through evolution )

In any case, humans do have free will. If God bludgeons people with overly dramatic and intrusive experiences and interventions in an effort to force his will on reluctant people, that would be cheating and constitute a violation of human free will by force, thereby defeating his own purpose of bring people to the light by means involving choice, love and healing benefits.

Note: I am not a proponent of God, religion, or any particular interpretation of the complex events at Fatima. That the events occurred is beyond dispute and people can and should educate themselves about it. I would be happy to cite important sources, as there are zillions, mostly poorish, out there.

In modest advocacy,
Dotini

 

[Sureboss]

Actually, there are a lot of eye witness statements stating that they saw nothing.

 

[Dotini]

Accepted.

 

[Exorcet]

In any case, humans do have free will. If God bludgeons people with overly dramatic and intrusive experiences and interventions in an effort to force his will on reluctant people, that would be cheating and constitute a violation of human free will by force, thereby defeating his own purpose of bring people to the light by means involving choice, love and healing benefits.

If someone 30000 feet tall flew around the Earth and asked an overwhelmingly large portion of the population (like setting a meeting with the UN and then speaking in a few major cities) if they believed in him, that would not violate free will.

Of course, God isn't necessarily 30,000 feet tall (though I supposed he could make himself that), but all he would have to do to convince people would be to show himself to be not human and above nature [though it could be some extremely advanced being possessing science beyond human comprehension]. Then to not break free will, just ask the question.

 

[Sureboss]

Dotini - Which asks many more questions than it answers. I think the fact it took place during an incredibly bloody time for Europe has a major factor, too.

 

[Dotini]

Dotini - Which asks many more questions than it answers. I think the fact it took place during an incredibly bloody time for Europe has a major factor, too.

This is a really excellent observation and is most apropos and correct in all ways.

Europe was engulfed in WWI and it was not going terribly well. Whole generations of young men were going down to new technologies: machine gun fire and poison gas, never to rise again. A Revolution was brewing in Russia that would bring about Communism as the state religion and a major, major setback for the Church. Elsewhere belief in God was in jeopardy, and in Portugal in particular attendance in the Catholic Church was falling. It was in this malign milieu that the events at Fatima unfolded. One of the reasons for the events at Fatima, as specifically revealed to the 3 illiterates and subsequently propounded by the Church, to include Pope John Paul II, was to address these very issues.

In very ambivalent advocacy,
Dotini

 

[mazdaman]

I believe jesus was black there plenty of religion for me of why I believe that.
Also regardless if he is white or black i still believe and love him.