Do you believe in God?

[Imari]

So you believe this lie is necessary for society to function as successfully as it does, eh? You are of course aware that believing one thing and saying another is also a lie and hypocrisy, and a manifestation of cognitive dissonance, or mental illness. Do you think a society founded on a lie is healthy,and will endure?

I believe that resurrection and eternal life is the greatest story ever told, simply because it is so widely, almost universally, believed to be beautiful, useful and necessary for civilization to have developed as it has.

Given that you've stated basically the same thing, but just with a different lie, I'd like you to address those points as well.

To save the amount of back and forth on this however, I'll include my thoughts in this post. But don't get sidetracked responding to those points and forget to answer your own question.

So you believe this lie is necessary for society to function as successfully as it does, eh?

I believe that the concept that all men are equal is a fairly fundamental part of our western society, yes. It's not always followed, but it's something that is "taught" in many different forms and underlies a lot of the structure of how our society is.

You are of course aware that believing one thing and saying another is also a lie and hypocrisy, and a manifestation of cognitive dissonance, or mental illness.

There's nothing wrong with being able to lie, it's a useful and important skill. Neither is there anything wrong with hypocrisy, we all do it all the time. The ability to hold conflicting ideas or beliefs is an incredibly important one, and I would go so far as to say that anyone who is incapable of doing so is at a significant mental disadvantage.

I'm not even sure where you're getting mental illness from. Lies and hypocrisy are not manifestations of mental illness, they're manifestations of being a human.

Regardless, you'll find that most people don't think of this as a lie. They don't treat it as a statement to be examined, they just accept it as an axiom.

But if you actually bother examine it, it's an obvious falsehood. Some members of society are more valuable (in pretty much any sense of the word) than others.

Do you think a society founded on a lie is healthy,and will endure?

I think it can be healthy, and I think it can endure. I didn't claim that our society was founded on a lie, I claimed that it was fundamental to it, but sure.

I don't think that just because a society or group has a lie as a central part of itself makes any difference. Look at the Christian church. The simple fact is that it doesn't really matter whether the idea of God is true or not, the church continues to be successful regardless.

Likewise, it doesn't really matter whether the idea of all men being equal is true or not. What matters is that people are willing to accept it, and that the behaviours that it promotes are ones that are beneficial to the society. If you look at the things that the idea of all men being equal promotes, they tend to be pretty good. We help everyone, including the sick, poor and feeble. We try and make opportunities available to all. We encourage being considerate of others. These are good things.

You'll find that English actually has a phrase specifically for lies that are either neutral or beneficial. They're called "white lies". Most children are taught about this fairly early on, as soon as they notice that their parents will regularly lie to other adults while still admonishing the child for lying to them.

 

[FoRiZon]

@Imari not to mention placebo medicines, which work when psychology instead that makes the whole thing healthier.

 

[Exorcet]

When you were a toddler, your mother gave you milk that came from the cow that chewed the grass that came from the soil. Stated simplistically, milk is rearranged soil nutrients.

Just like chemistry tells us.

Coincidentally, science tells us that the same trace elements that make up soil are the same elements that make up the human body--carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus.

The coincidence is in the Bible, which incorrectly relates soil to human chemical composition. Science actually found the correct answer through proper methodology. Notice the Bible doesn't say what material is present and how much.

Also, here's another "coincidence" for you:

Look at that, organic materials in the soil are in stars and result from the process that keeps them going.

 

[PiotrGT]

I do believe. I just feel better to do it. I'm not the one who goes to the church often but I pray often. Don't ask me why, I will not force you to believe anything. I don't really like when somene is making jokes of religion but I'm getting used to it.

 

[Mike458]

I do believe. I just feel better to do it. I'm not the one who goes to the church often but I pray often. Don't ask me why, I will not force you to believe anything. I don't really like when somene is making jokes of religion but I'm getting used to it.

This. If what you do makes you feel better about yourself without harming other people, then keep doing what you're doing!

 

[Mark T]

I do believe. I just feel better to do it. I'm not the one who goes to the church often but I pray often. Don't ask me why, I will not force you to believe anything. I don't really like when somene is making jokes of religion but I'm getting used to it.

Do you believe in one of the mainstream gods or do you believe that there is a creator which we don't know much about?

 

[PiotrGT]

I'm think of myself rather as Christian. I don't really like to talk about it, it's hard to tell. I just wanted to say that I believe in God.Rather Christian God but I respect other religions.

 

[huskeR32]

I'm think of myself rather as Christian. I don't really like to talk about it, it's hard to tell. I just wanted to say that I believe in God.Rather Christian God but I respect other religions.

May I ask why? What makes you think that God exists?

 

[Beeblebrox237]

@PiotrGT Thank you for not forcing anyone to believe anything.

 

[PiotrGT]

May I ask why? What makes you think that God exists?

I think everything in this world is too complicated, too perfectly made, I think someone has created it.

 

[Danoff]

I think everything in this world is too complicated, too perfectly made, I think someone has created it.

"Perfect" being a funny word to describe biological organisms.

 

[JKgo]

...I think asking someone, anyone, to describe why one believes in a deity would inevitably end up on a so-called "slippery slope". I mean, people who do believe, may not hold same reasons as a person next to him/her.
It is an intensely personal, and not to mention spiritual thing, this weird sensation called faith.
I actually haven't met a person who could quatify that. And that's including priests, monks, imams and rabbis.

...Not that I'm an expert in such matters - seeing that I'm a so-called non-theist...

 

[Dan]

...I think asking someone, anyone, to describe why one believes in a deity would inevitably end up on a so-called "slippery slope". I mean, people who do believe, may not hold same reasons as a person next to him/her.
It is an intensely personal, and not to mention spiritual thing, this weird sensation called faith.
I actually haven't met a person who could quatify that. And that's including priests, monks, imams and rabbis.

...Not that I'm an expert in such matters - seeing that I'm a so-called non-theist...

Some of us are curious. We want to have a reasoning behind things. I'm an atheist, but I always like to hear why a person believes in something. I find it interesting, and it's just another way of learning about people, their backgrounds, and possibly their cultures, too. It gives a small amount of insight into their other beliefs and how they might make decisions.

 

[PiotrGT]

I said I'm not going to argue about my faith, I'm respectful to you so be respectful to me instead of saying that my words are funny. I knew it will end like this, if I'm happy to believe then who cares, it's called faith after all. If someone isn't trying to make you a Christian then why even argue. I would understand if I tried but I didn't. I came here to talk about racing games and just said that I believe. Case closed.

 

[dylansan]

I said I'm not going to argue about my faith, I'm respectful to you so be respectful to me instead of saying that my words are funny. I knew it will end like this, if I'm happy to believe then who cares, it's called faith after all. If someone isn't trying to make you a Christian then why even argue. I would understand if I tried but I didn't. I came here to talk about racing games and just said that I believe. Case closed.

If you're referring to Danoff's post as "disrespectful" then I must disagree. No one is making fun of you or trying to force you to change your beliefs. Some of us might encourage you to think about and discuss your beliefs as you may not understand your reasons for them, which is not uncommon for anyone. It takes a lot of effort to analyze your own thoughts and beliefs to decide if you really understand the world accurately.

 

[PiotrGT]

If you're referring to Danoff's post as "disrespectful" then I must disagree. No one is making fun of you or trying to force you to change your beliefs. Some of us might encourage you to think about and discuss your beliefs as you may not understand your reasons for them, which is not uncommon for anyone. It takes a lot of effort to analyze your own thoughts and beliefs to decide if you really understand the world accurately.

Ok, maybe I overreacted, sorry. I think about it myself, I would like to keep it private.

 

[JKgo]

Some of us are curious. We want to have a reasoning behind things. I'm an atheist, but I always like to hear why a person believes in something. I find it interesting, and it's just another way of learning about people, their backgrounds, and possibly their cultures, too. It gives a small amount of insight into their other beliefs and how they might make decisions.

...True, in some respects. I did say having faith is "intensely personal" thing, and I'm fairly certain there are good deal of folks out there who would like to remain that way.
After all, our curiosity does not necessarily justify our invasion of their privacy, right?
And as for insights and decisions....hmm, I don't wanna sweep everyone under simple stereotypes so I guess I'll determine that case by case, word by word.

(I do believe the so-called Mob Mentality exists, though...I've seen it plenty enough times anyhow.)

 

[Spurgy 777]

...True, in some respects. I did say having faith is "intensely personal" thing, and I'm fairly certain there are good deal of folks out there who would like to remain that way.
After all, our curiosity does not necessarily justify our invasion of their privacy, right?
And as for insights and decisions....hmm, I don't wanna sweep everyone under simple stereotypes so I guess I'll determine that case by case, word by word.

(I do believe the so-called Mob Mentality exists, though...I've seen it plenty enough times anyhow.)

I don't see how were invading their privacy, they aren't forced to say anything if they don't want to.

 

[TheCracker]

I said I'm not going to argue about my faith, I'm respectful to you so be respectful to me instead of saying that my words are funny. I knew it will end like this, if I'm happy to believe then who cares, it's called faith after all. If someone isn't trying to make you a Christian then why even argue. I would understand if I tried but I didn't. I came here to talk about racing games and just said that I believe. Case closed.

You posted in the 'opinions' section of the forum. It's an area where subjects are there to be debated. Just don't be surprised when others question what you wrote or ask you to expand on what you originally said. It's not getting at you personally, it's just the process of debate.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Your logic is flawless as ever.

Thanks for the compliment and your astute observation.
Yes the logic is flawless, however even though you dropped the qualifier on the end, the wording of the explanation was not the best.
I should have said you cannot use documentation as evidence against and not recognize it as evidence for, as well.

Your own words would disagree:

In the ultimate sense, yes they do.
As far as the Judaeo-Christian God you still need the law to show, you need a change in heart, so it is still an integral part of the process.
Principally, it is still consistent with the hypothetical.

On that basis you are attempting to claim that I support a proposition that it was never written? Which is quite absurd.

Not exactly.
If it is testimonial documentation, then that is evidence for validity.
The evidence of an inconsistency that you are pointing out, is based in the same documentation.
The strength of evidence for or against is another matter.

That the lines were added to later versions of the Bible is quite clear (and I have said that all along), who they originated from is not (and I have said that all along). That they were added by a mortal man and originated from mortal men has evidence (mortal men exist - you and I are evidence of this); that they were added by mortal men but originated from a divine being who gave up his body over 400 years prior has no supporting evidence at all.

I disagree.
The fact that it is consistently in all documentation going forward, lends some legitimacy to the addition, since there appears to be no evidence of contention and division over it, wherein that was the case repeatedly involving other doctrinal differences.

We have almost zero evidence for Jesus in the first place outside of the Bible and none at all that support his divine status.

Evidence, yes.
Conclusive evidence, at least from without, no.

The evidence for the two positions is not equal at all.

Unless you have evidence that supports an illigetimate intention, then evidentially yes they are equal.

With the existing evidence your determination cannot be established supportively or legitimately.
Your claim requires a biased interpretation of the evidence.

Rather simple, conclusive is moot, its not required by your source. You added it as a requirement.

Again that depends on which approach is employed.

No its not. None of the available evidence supports the words having been spoken by Jesus, not a single bit of it.

Again testimonally they do.
The words are clearly attributed to him having said them.

If you have documented evidence to support it, then provide it (and no you don't get to use the Bible - and if you don't understand why then its explains a lot).

Provide it.

No we don't.

First provide evidence he existed as a divine being, without that you are left with only evidence for a man said it and added it.

The only evidence for any of that is the testimonial documentation.
That is precisely why it is referred to as the Old Testament and the New Testament.

Some man or men penned all of it, and as such it stands on it's own for individual interpretation and decision
as to validity.
It is not conclusively evidential from your requirement of evidence, nor has it ever been as far as I know.

I don't, necessarily. I believe that resurrection and eternal life is the greatest story ever told, simply because it is so widely, almost universally, believed to be beautiful, useful and necessary for civilization to have developed as it has. But I think it could prove to be a lie, depending on the mystery of consciousness and what becomes of it after death.

Don't forget, there is always the possibility it's true as well.

So you believe this lie is necessary for society to function as successfully as it does, eh? You are of course aware that believing one thing and saying another is also a lie and hypocrisy, and a manifestation of cognitive dissonance, or mental illness. Do you think a society founded on a lie is healthy,and will endure?

I'm not sure what you mean by that?

Religion, particularly things that we cannot see like spirituality are in the supernatural realm and therefore cannot be measured or tested in any way. If you can find evidence that god exists, then science can test it and either confirm that he exists or not. However, until evidence is found supporting that God exists, we can say that there is no evidence and the evidence that exists does not conform to rational logic. That said, I will continue to believe that god does not exist until there is factual evidence that he does.

Please explain.

No, the realm of the spiritual cannot be tested or measured by Science.
So you are assuming it cannot be known or evidential on that basis.
Now I will agree that is logical, but is also subjective.
Or biased and prejudiced against the possibilty that individually it can be explored and confirmed.

 

[Sureboss]

"Perfect" being a funny word to describe biological organisms.

I'm sure many glasses wearing members enjoyed your post.

 

[FoRiZon]

"Perfect" being a funny word to describe biological organisms.

In a same world where even religion says we arent perfect, Jesus included.

 

[Liquid]

I'm sure many glasses wearing members enjoyed your post.

Or anyone whose sewage system uses some of the same pipes as their entertainment system. A 'perfect' configuration.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Or anyone whose sewage system uses some of the same pipes as their entertainment system. A 'perfect' configuration.

That would be Endemol, they started life building sewers in London. Now they make Big Brother. Go figure

 

[Mike458]

Some man or men penned all of it, and as such it stands on it's own for individual interpretation and decision
as to validity.

This statement basically invalidates all of your arguments based on the Bible against god.

No, the realm of the spiritual cannot be tested or measured by Science.
So you are assuming it cannot be known or evidential on that basis.

Well, if you find evidence, then scientists can help you test that proof. Otherwise, there is not enough evidence for such a god.

 

[Scaff]

In the ultimate sense, yes they do.
As far as the Judaeo-Christian God you still need the law to show, you need a change in heart, so it is still an integral part of the process.
Principally, it is still consistent with the hypothetical.

Now aside from the middle part of that being gibberish all this does is confirm that we have a control group that shows a deity is not needed for morality, and have had one that has been around longer that Christianity.

Not exactly.
If it is testimonial documentation, then that is evidence for validity.
The evidence of an inconsistency that you are pointing out, is based in the same documentation.
The strength of evidence for or against is another matter.

The differing strengths of evidence is not another matter, its the key matter.

"When we have no evidence favoring either proposition, we must suspend belief in both."

We have evidence favoring one and you are still relying on the existence of Jesus as a divine being for evidence at all for you argument (of which we have none).

I disagree.
The fact that it is consistently in all documentation going forward, lends some legitimacy to the addition, since there appears to be no evidence of contention and division over it, wherein that was the case repeatedly involving other doctrinal differences.

That offers no evidence that it was spoken by Jesus, none at all. It carries the exact same evidence that any of it was spoken by Jesus, none at all.

It has all the evidence that the works of JK Rowling was spoken by Harry Potter.

Evidence, yes.
Conclusive evidence, at least from without, no.

Evidecne that Jesus is a divine being? Please provide it (and no the Bible can't be used to prove the Bible).

Unless you have evidence that supports an illigetimate intention, then evidentially yes they are equal.

With the existing evidence your determination cannot be established supportively or legitimately.
Your claim requires a biased interpretation of the evidence.

Yes it can, as yours relies entirely on Jesus existing as a divine being and having spoken the words, for which no evidence exists.

Again that depends on which approach is employed.

No it doesn't. The source doesn't use he word at all, you added it.

Again testimonally they do.
The words are clearly attributed to him having said them.

Ditto Harry Potter.

The only evidence for any of that is the testimonial documentation.
That is precisely why it is referred to as the Old Testament and the New Testament.

Some man or men penned all of it, and as such it stands on it's own for individual interpretation and decision
as to validity.
It is not conclusively evidential from your requirement of evidence, nor has it ever been as far as I know.

Circular logic, you can't use the Bible to prove the Bible, this has been explained countless times over the years and yet you still ignore it.

 

[Thomas__633]

Do you believe in God?
I could give a very long and articulate response, but one word sums up my opinion.
No.

 

[DQuaN]

Do you believe in God?
I could give a very long and articulate response, but one word sums up my opinion.
No.

I prefer to use two words.

 

[PiotrGT]

You posted in the 'opinions' section of the forum. It's an area where subjects are there to be debated. Just don't be surprised when others question what you wrote or ask you to expand on what you originally said. It's not getting at you personally, it's just the process of debate.

I understand then. Will remember this when posting next time.

 

[Denur]

I should have said you cannot use documentation as evidence against and not recognize it as evidence for, as well.

I don't get this, when I document for example that my pen is made from plastic and thus not e.g. made from stone, how could you use that as evidence that it is in fact made from stone?