Do you believe in God(s)?

[jean-luc]

It is true, if creationism is correct it's rock-solid proof of God's existence.
Of course, I don't think most of us think it is.

[otters]

actually, i was reasserting the original topic. the discussion had begun to digress, and i wished to redirect it.

edit@demonz: i have read the guidelines. i don't think of this as a minor digression from the original topic; the whole topic was changed. we changed from "is there a god" to "how was the universe created", and i think that the knowledge of how the universe was created is not too relevant to the original topic.

Wrong. According to most religious texts, the greatest feat of any god was the creation of the universe. Prove that the universe was created a different way, and the image and possible existence of [the debated] god(s) gets MUCH blurrier.

That doesn't do much, though. We could just argue that God caused the Big Bang.

[blue_tetris]

That doesn't do much, though. We could just argue that God caused the Big Bang.

Considering all the scientific proof that supports theories like the Big Bang and abiogenesis, why don't you do just that? The Catholics broke down and said "Fine! Alright, the world isn't the center of the universe!" when they were pressed hard enough by the science and they said "Okay okay! The earth isn't flat, either!" Is the debate against evolution one final horrah for the folks who want the Church to undermine scientific discovery?

[capt_weasle]

I don't see why, as our understanding of science improves, so does our understanding of the bible. Although the argument can go the other way, as science improves, so creates more against religion.

[origami_alligator]

I don't see why, as our understanding of science improves, so does our understanding of the bible. Although the argument can go the other way, as science improves, so creates more against religion.

Let's use the 10 Plagues of Egypt, for example.
dominos!

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

I don't see why, as our understanding of science improves, so does our understanding of the bible. Although the argument can go the other way, as science improves, so creates more against religion.

PROTIP: The Bible is composed of individual human works. Humans knew less about science (and therefore the world) back then than we know now.
The trend you're actually seeing is that the authors of the Bible are getting away with less and less, and the convoluted attempts to reconcile its failing are becoming more and more pathetic.

[otters]

I don't see why, as our understanding of science improves, so does our understanding of the bible. Although the argument can go the other way, as science improves, so creates more against religion.

Let's use the 10 Plagues of Egypt, for example.
dominos!

Those seem a bit feeble.
I could go with a few holes, but I think the biggest is the three days of darkness where only the land of Goshen was visible. A solar eclipse? Total covering of the sun? Right.

I know it mentions the whole "faith" thing ("Typically, modern writers, and particularly skeptics, account for such details of the account as being pious exaggerations, or literary devices, intended to encourage faith.") But that's what Christianity is. Faith. And if you don't have faith in what's true, religion doesn't work for you.

The trend you're actually seeing is that the authors of the Bible are getting away with less and less, and the convoluted attempts to reconcile its failing are becoming more and more pathetic.

No, the trend I'm actually seeing is not the trend that you want to see. I'm seeing that the Bible still makes sense, will make sense, and presents a better argument for the existence of the earth than any other explanation.

[a happy song]

The trend you're actually seeing is that the authors of the Bible are getting away with less and less, and the convoluted attempts to reconcile its failing are becoming more and more pathetic.

No, the trend I'm actually seeing is not the trend that you want to see. I'm seeing that the Bible still makes sense, will make sense, and presents a better argument for the existence of the earth than any other explanation.

incluye - why can't you admit that as the Bible was written by humans it is possible that it was open to human failings?

The trend Suki mentions is actually fully apparent. The Church has turned full circle on scientific issues as our actual knowledge of the universe progresses, that's fact, as we progress further you really can't see how it's possible that further aspects of the Bible will be debunked?

This has nothing to do with the word of your god being lesser, this has to do with the Humans who supposedly transposed that word being only Human and knowing they could write what they want about certain aspects of Science as there was no possible way to prove them wrong.

I know a few very intelligent Christians who accept this fully without letting it affect their faith in the slightest. I'm not sure why you're having such a difficulty...

[乳头的早餐谷物]

I know it mentions the whole "faith" thing ("Typically, modern writers, and particularly skeptics, account for such details of the account as being pious exaggerations, or literary devices, intended to encourage faith.") But that's what Christianity is. Faith. And if you don't have faith in what's true, religion doesn't work for you.

The trend you're actually seeing is that the authors of the Bible are getting away with less and less, and the convoluted attempts to reconcile its failing are becoming more and more pathetic.

No, the trend I'm actually seeing is not the trend that you want to see. I'm seeing that the Bible still makes sense, will make sense, and presents a better argument for the existence of the earth than any other explanation.

Why would you need to have faith in what's true? If it were clearly true you wouldn't.

Incidentally, do you believe in biblical inerrancy—that is, that the Bible is perfect and completely free of error?

[Keron]

Why would you need to have faith in what's true? If it were clearly true you wouldn't.

Yeah, I wanted to correct that, incluye. It would be good to read Hebrews 11:1 and recognize that all the servants of God listed there felt doubt at times but trusted in God, and were able to achieve what they hoped for.

Naturalists will dismiss them as a self-fulfilling prophecies, according to AP Psychology. :D But Christianity is founded on faith, and what that dismissal misses is (is? "are"?) the lives it changes, how it brings broken families together, how it restores friendships, softens tensions, brings people to peace with one another and into the highest levels of productivity and efficiency in whatever they do.

[Atilla]

Naturalists will dismiss them as a self-fulfilling prophecies, according to AP Psychology. :D But Christianity is founded on faith, and what that dismissal misses is (is? "are"?) the lives it changes, how it brings broken families together, how it restores friendships, softens tensions, brings people to peace with one another and into the highest levels of productivity and efficiency in whatever they do.

What? That's not a counter-claim to the dismissal of Biblical prophesies. It's like saying "I believe in Santa Claus. Now, the nasty naturalists will probably say it's actually your parents, but what that explanation misses is that getting presents makes people happy!" How happy the Bible makes you has no bearing on its accuracy. Not to mention that you could make the same argument for every religion which disagrees with yours, and they can't all be right.

Not to mention that Christianity has also been known to break friendships, tear families apart, result in discrimination and hatred, as an excuse for religious wars and ill-founded executions, and even acts of terrorism. If you want to get into argue about just how spiffy religion is, I'm sure Tsukatu will be happy to talk about it at length.

[Twistkill]

These horrendous acts committed in the name of Christianity were not supposed to happen, you're right. However, they are due to human error and misconception. Just because people claim to be Christians and then do something erroneous behind that label doesn't mean God told them to do it or the Bible condones it.

One example is the Roman Catholic Church during the transition period to the early modern age, and subsequently, the posting of Martin Luther's 95 theses on the doors of the University of Wittingham. The RMC (hehe, acronym) sold indulgences, which were literally payments to the church in order to lessen a sinner's time in purgatory. We all know this was total garbage, can we agree on that? Yes? Regardless, this isn't what God said to do or what the Bible says to do, either. The Roman Catholic Church was corrupt, hypocritical, and greedy - it was not a fair representation of what Christianity is actually supposed to teach, and thus, it gives ammunition (as wrong as these shots may be) to atheists. If you are going to criticize Christianity, like what always happens when the God debate is pulled up, at least do it on fair grounds. These persecutions, acts of terrorism, etc. were not because of God. They twisted and skewed words for their personal justification.

If a murderer confesses that God told him to kill person X, would you believe him? You're not supposed to, because God doesn't ask anyone to purposefully commit a sin. Anyone who does commit sins, claiming they were in the name of God, are people whose judgement has been clouded and their true motives obsfucated.

[ZZ9]

Just because people claim to be Christians and then do something erroneous behind that label doesn't mean God told them to do it or the Bible condones it.

You'll find that the Bible does tell them to do it.

He who sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed.

Thou shalt not bow down to their [foreign] gods, nor serve them, nor do after their works: but thou shalt utterly overthrow them, and quite break down their images.

But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire.

That whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.

Also, don't try "The Old Testament doesn't apply for reason X" because...

But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee:
[Long list of curses]

There are probably more I couldn't find in the 5-minute search I did. I think these come under "horrendous" by any sensible definition of the word.

[jean-luc]

Just because people claim to be Christians and then do something erroneous behind that label doesn't mean God told them to do it or the Bible condones it.

You'll find that the Bible does tell them to do it.

He who sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed.

Thou shalt not bow down to their [foreign] gods, nor serve them, nor do after their works: but thou shalt utterly overthrow them, and quite break down their images.

But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire.

That whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.

Also, don't try "The Old Testament doesn't apply for reason X" because...

But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee:
[Long list of curses]

There are probably more I couldn't find in the 5-minute search I did. I think these come under "horrendous" by any sensible definition of the word.

It's not that the Law of Moses no longer applies, it's that it has been fulfilled. The OT law included things like an eye for an eye, and the passages above, that were part of the Law of Moses; After the birth of Christ, however, the Law of Moses was fulfilled by the ultimate sacrifice. The Law of Moses no longer applies for the same reason that Christians no longer practice blood sacrifice.

The Law of Moses fulfilled two purposes.
A) They foreshadowed Christ. Blood sacrifice and related rituals were all precursors to the birth of Christ
B) They ensured order and righteousness using the 'lower law.' As I previously explained, the people of the OT proved themselves incapable of following The Higher Law (the law of Christ, the law of the NT).

However, when Jesus Christ was crucified, he committed the ultimate and final sacrifice, which fulfilled, or completed, the law of Moses. Jesus, during his mortal ministry, spoke directly against the Law of Moses (and particularly the modifications made by man, many of which are recorded in the OT along with the original law presented by god). Jesus preached, and formally brought in to effect, the Higher Law, which is what we now obey.

Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto christ, that we might be justified by faith; [25] But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. [26] For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus

This passage, from Paul's epistle to the Galatians, explains that the Law of Abraham was a lower form of the true gospel intended to help bring the people to Christ. When Christ came, the full law came in to effect.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints Bible Dictionary is a brief compendium of modern research and philosophy. The contents of the Bible Dictionary are collected from many sources, including scholars from all christian sects, and the hard sciences such as archaeology. A minority of the content of the bible dictionary was written by LDS (Mormon) scholars, in fact, most of it is taken directly from the Oxford Bible Companion. Because of this the contents of the LDS Bible Dictionary are typically in full agreement with the beliefs of other Christian sects. The LDS Bible Dictionary is included in the appendix of any LDS-Annotated King James Bible.

Law of Moses: The name assigned to the whole collection of written laws given through Moses to the house of Israel, as a replacement of the higher law that they had failed to obey.... The law of carnal commandments and much of the ceremonial law was fulfilled at the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.... The Law of Moses was a good law, although adapted to a lower spiritual capacity than is required for obedience to the gospel in its fullness. However, the Jewish leaders had added many unauthorized provisions, ceremonies, and prohibitions to the original law, until it became extremely burdensome. These innovations were known as the "traditions of the elders." By NT times, among the Jews the law had become so altered it had lost much of it's spiritual meaning, almost to the point that the law was worshiped more than the Lord. It is this form of the law that is so harshly spoken against by Jesus and by Paul (see Matt. 15:1-9; Mark 7:7:1-13; and Gal. 2:16-21)

Because of the fulfillment, the law of Moses (the OT law) is no longer in effect. Religious scholars and revelators throughout Christianity are in agreement on this.

ZZ9: The Law of Moses is no longer in effect by the command of God through Jesus Christ. By disregarding the Law of Moses, we are obeying God.

[Atilla]

@Twistkill: I understand that many of the things done in the name of religion, Christian or otherwise, are considered reprehensible and not indicative of the true intent of the faith. However, it doesn't change the fact that these acts are inspired, excused or made possible by the religion in question, or by the official organisations of said religion. Basically, what I was saying is that Keron needs to keep his feet on the ground - while good can certainly be accomplished through religion, it's not quite the universal force for peace and love which he was making it out to be. Even leaving aside crimes committed in the name of religion, there are many people for whom it isn't particularly helpful or harmful - particularly in places like the UK and Australia, where religion is typically regarded as rather less important than in the States. There's also the fact that non-religious people/causes/activities are also entirely capable of doing all the things he mentioned. It's just that people don't typically shout "For secularism!" in those cases.

[Twistkill]

@Twistkill: I understand that many of the things done in the name of religion, Christian or otherwise, are considered reprehensible and not indicative of the true intent of the faith. However, it doesn't change the fact that these acts are inspired, excused or made possible by the religion in question, or by the official organisations of said religion. Basically, what I was saying is that Keron needs to keep his feet on the ground - while good can certainly be accomplished through religion, it's not quite the universal force for peace and love which he was making it out to be. Even leaving aside crimes committed in the name of religion, there are many people for whom it isn't particularly helpful or harmful - particularly in places like the UK and Australia, where religion is typically regarded as rather less important than in the States. There's also the fact that non-religious people/causes/activities are also entirely capable of doing all the things he mentioned. It's just that people don't typically shout "For secularism!" in those cases.

I know that religion is not a prerequisite for morality or being peaceful and helpful to everyone. There are many Christians who are actually rude and insensitive (I know one of these guys), but there are atheists, like a friend of mine I knew last year, who was loving, cheerful, and always brought a smile to my face.

I also just want to point out that organized religion can indeed be a problem. Who was the idiot that made Christianity into a religion? God didn't want us to create a religion and then cause many horrible acts to be committed years later. He just wants us to follow his word, pray, partake in tithes and offerings and communion, among other practices. I don't see where religion, when it became organized, accomplished these things. You can do these things with small groups of other people or even by yourself just fine. The fact that religion organized these things into a more community-like setting is why it originally took off so well and got into power, but it has caused problems, too, I admit that. I just don't want people begin attacking the religion's principles or ideals because of the flaws that occurred from its organization.

I've seen miracles performed and people healed, both physically and spiritually. I've heard of financial situations turned aroun, families becoming reunited, Hell's Angels becoming like kitty cats, murderers, rapists, arsonists, and pedophiles accepting Jesus, among other miracles.

People focus too much on the negative aspects of what religion has accidentally caused to happen instead of seeing what its true intentions are.

[乳头的早餐谷物]

I've seen miracles performed and people healed, both physically and spiritually. I've heard of financial situations turned aroun, families becoming reunited, Hell's Angels becoming like kitty cats, murderers, rapists, arsonists, and pedophiles accepting Jesus, among other miracles.

People focus too much on the negative aspects of what religion has accidentally caused to happen instead of seeing what its true intentions are.

Speaking of true intentions, let's say the Christianity is 100% correct, the Bible is the true word of God, and all Christians are doing the right thing. What about Islam or Hinduism (for example)? They must be wrong because they're not compatible with Christianity. They must be spreading lies and deception. What would be the true intentions of these religions?

[blue_tetris]

People focus too much on the negative aspects of what religion has accidentally caused to happen instead of seeing what its true intentions are.

When a dude kicks me in the balls, I don't consider if he "means well".

[Radium]

Speaking of true intentions, let's say the Christianity is 100% correct, the Bible is the true word of God, and all Christians are doing the right thing. What about Islam or Hinduism (for example)? They must be wrong because they're not compatible with Christianity. They must be spreading lies and deception. What would be the true intentions of these religions?

That right there is enought proof for me that no religon is true.

[BNW]

Speaking of true intentions, let's say the Christianity is 100% correct, the Bible is the true word of God, and all Christians are doing the right thing. What about Islam or Hinduism (for example)? They must be wrong because they're not compatible with Christianity. They must be spreading lies and deception. What would be the true intentions of these religions?

That right there is enought proof for me that no religon is true.

We won't ever know if one religion is more right than another. Saying that Christianity, or any other religion, is 100% correct would pretty ignorant.

I also just want to point out that organized religion can indeed be a problem. Who was the idiot that made Christianity into a religion? God didn't want us to create a religion and then cause many horrible acts to be committed years later. He just wants us to follow his word, pray, partake in tithes and offerings and communion, among other practices. I don't see where religion, when it became organized, accomplished these things. You can do these things with small groups of other people or even by yourself just fine. The fact that religion organized these things into a more community-like setting is why it originally took off so well and got into power, but it has caused problems, too, I admit that. I just don't want people begin attacking the religion's principles or ideals because of the flaws that occurred from its organization.

The idea that religion started the wars is a little of a misnomer. Most of the time, it was politics that started the wars, but people used religion as justification for it, which is just as terrible.

[jean-luc]

I've seen miracles performed and people healed, both physically and spiritually. I've heard of financial situations turned aroun, families becoming reunited, Hell's Angels becoming like kitty cats, murderers, rapists, arsonists, and pedophiles accepting Jesus, among other miracles.

People focus too much on the negative aspects of what religion has accidentally caused to happen instead of seeing what its true intentions are.

Speaking of true intentions, let's say the Christianity is 100% correct, the Bible is the true word of God, and all Christians are doing the right thing. What about Islam or Hinduism (for example)? They must be wrong because they're not compatible with Christianity. They must be spreading lies and deception. What would be the true intentions of these religions?

Not all religions believe that believers in other religions are damned. Mormons (which I once again cite, since I have the most experience with them) believe that other religions are good; all christian religions are doing great good by bringing souls closer to Christ, and believers of all kinds, and even atheists, are doing good by encouraging love, service, equality, etc.

the followers of Anubus have similar beliefs.

Unfortunately, a minority of religions have this kind of respect for other religions. I can only think of two examples right now.

[Simmo33]

.

[DemonzLunchBreak]

Evolution, however, has loads of proof.

It doesn't have any proof it just has strong evidence. Personally I am a Christian (Baptist, just in case you were wondering).

Before we go any farther, define "proof." In a technical sense, evolution cannot be proven because science by its very nature does not prove things. However, if we're talking about proof in a colloquial sense, then there are mountains of it in favor of evolution.

[Sweep]

I personally do not. I am a man of science. Evolution is not a theory, it is a fact. The amount of evidence supporting God is virtually nothing. Evolution, however, has loads of proof.

I have no intention to offend anyone so don't post if you are going to cuss me out.

Discuss your opinion.

Ok, I'm kind of answering this without reading the whole thread (which I'll get round to when I have the time) but I think it's very close minded to state the reason you don't believe in God is that you are a "man of science". Science and religion are by no means mutually exclusive.

[crescor]

Science and Church don't work together. That's why we need to keep the Church and the State separate.