Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Do you believe in God?
Prexix
Member Posts: 54
I personally don't. What about you?
Feel free to debate, but do so friendly please.
I browsed back 8 pages and didn't find any threads on God so I hope this isn't repetitive.
I'm not going to start with every reason I don't believe in God, but one reason is a guy named Sathya Sai Baba.
Jesus, a guy attributed with many miracles such as resurrection, being born of a virgin, healing the sick, walking on water, water into wine, etc... gets world wide belief based on a book that allegedly recorded these events decades decades after they occurred.
Yet, Sathya, a guru who claims to be born from a virgin, can walk on water, healed the sick, flew without assistance (ascended?) and a number of other miracles, has literally thousands of living eyewitnesses in this day and age with the ability to record said miracles. Millions of people believe he is a living God. "So, consider, as though for the first time, the foundational claim of Christianity. The claim is that miracles stories of a sort that surround a person like Sathya Sai Baba today and which are compelling to no one apart from his devotees suddenly become specially creditable if you place them in the pre-scientific religious context of the first century Roman Empire decades after their supposed occurrence. Sathya Sai Baba's miracles don't even merit an hour on the Discovery Channel and yet place these miracles in an ancient text and half the people on this earth think it a legitimate project to organize their lives around them. Does anyone else see a problem with that?" - Sam Harris
Feel free to present your own arguments for or against, or refute this one, but remember.. STAY FRIENDLY.
Also, please don't post if all you have to say is "no one cares". I get that a lot when I debate outside debate sites. Debating is fun.. period.
Comments
We have an unwritten rule on these forums, we all agreed that we really don't like to discuss politics, religion, and sexual orientation.
...and yet those seem to be the topics of our most popular threads. Go figure.
As to the topic at hand. No. No belief whatsoever. I have seen zero proof of anything supernatural. Your example of Sathya Sai Baba seems a bit shady. A whole bunch of believers giving 'eyewitness' accounts, yet no controlled situations for his miracles. I call bull. Not saying you believe in your example, or anything, but it's about as believable as the Jesus story, or any other mythology for that matter.
I think religion is really about the fear of dying. Or rather, fear in general. It gives answers to life's questions where none exist. I'm okay with knowing that the only thing that has ever been proven about death is that it is the end. Done. Period. Everything else is just wild fantasy.
- LC
That's exactly my point. I don't talk about Sathya Sai Baba because I think his story is convincing, but because I think Christians have a double standard.
Sathya Sai Baba is a reason why I don't believe in God because the Jesus story becomes a whole lot less convincing when you realize people are fooling others into believing they can perform miracles even today.
In the Bible, many people performed miracles. However, NOT many people claimed to be the son of God. In fact, Jesus isn't important because of the miracles he performed, but rather because of both what he preached and what he did (or is alledged to have done, if you're not a believer). This is why Easter is actually the most holy day on the calendar for Christians.
Anyway, to answer the OP: yes, I believe in God, as a Christian.
So because Jesus claimed he was the son of God, he has more credibility? I'm sure it would give him more importance, at least for Christians, but to confuse importance and credibility is a mistake.
I was raised Christian and 'lost faith' around age 18.
Here's my beef. If God made us just the way we are, why would he give us the brains and analytical skills to logically disprove his existence? There are atheists out there who TRULY believe within themselves that God does not exist. These people believe what they truly think to be right, so why should they burn in hell for all of eternity? God made them that way, isn't it his fault for believing what they do?
-------------------------
Yes I believe in God I am a Christan.
He wasnt talking about Jesus having more credability for claiming to be the Son of God. He pointed out that people other then Jesus in the bible performed miracles. Only Jesus was the Son of God thats what set him apart.
Hold on Snow Leopard, imma let you finish, but Windows had one of the best operating systems of all time.
If the Powerball lottery was like Lotro, nobody would win for 2 years, and then everyone in Nebraska would win on the same day.
And then Nebraska would get nerfed.-pinkwood lotro fourms
AMD 4800 2.4ghz-3GB RAM 533mhz-EVGA 9500GT 512mb-320gb HD
Wasn't Sai Baba that pedofile dude? Also, all his miracles are about as miraculous as David Blaines magic tricks. Actually Blaines tricks are a bit cooler and more convincing.
Interesting how often this thread pops up. At least this one actually was meant to bring up the existence of god whereas the others try skirting around it.
Yes I believe in a form of god. I don't follow any succinct religious path although I was raised jewish.
On that point, I agree with him. That does make Jesus far more important.
But how valid is importance if we don't consider credibility? That's the big kicker, in my opinion.
I've researched him for quite some time and I've never come across that, no. Perhaps you're thinking of Muhammad.
The grandeur of his miracles are on par with Jesus. Which is the only thing they are being compared to.
It's funny you should mention David Blaine, as many people literally believe he works miracles as well.. which furthers my point.
...and yet those seem to be the topics of our most popular threads. Go figure.
Yes, but our topics on flower gardening, lawn care, and color coordination of clothes are much more interesting than politics, religion, and sexual orientation.......
I am tri-sexual. If it's sexual I want to try it........
Most people turn to dogma in search of God. Its basically "truth" on a silver platter. And once they dont find common sense in them, they turn from God completely.
Most people are either born on one side of the fence. Raised religiously, and blot out anything that tries to defy their belief. Or are a agnostic / atheist that use science to backup their "theory" Both sides are only viewing half the picture because they choose to view half the picture. Open minded individuals that just search for truth, are standing on that fence, and they can see farther than others.
The truth is both. Seemingly opposite and ironic, both religion and science can show the works of God more than anything else. Its is very hard and easy to understand. Another opposite, because most things in life have an opposite, a major philosophical key.
The religion and science im speaking of, are synonymous with philosophy and physics. The key points in religion, and the deepest of sciences. Only few have seen the connection, but Albert Einstein explains it the best in my opinion.
"All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. "
"We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."
- Albert Einstein
Also, most evidence of a God is found in peoples personal lives. Ive heard some incredible stories from relatives that defy reality itself. The truth is, there is God. But the way people view him from whatever scource (bible, koran, ect.), blots out the true nature of who he really is and what is possible in this life and the next.
This will have to be a short post, so: what made Jesus important wasn't so much that he claimed to be the Son of God, but rather what he said and did, or at least what we believe he said and did. And by "did" I mean mainly the whole sacrifice/crucified thing. The key belief among Christians is that Jesus died for our sins so that we might be redeemed. It is NOT that he turned water into wine, or gave sight to the blind, etc.
And, of course, there is his actual teachings, or at least what we know of them that have been passed down to us and which are attributed to him.
The bottom line here is that Jesus was not merely a miracle-worker, and the millions that follow him do not do so simply because he worked a bunch of nifty miracles.
I believe in cheese.
-- Brede
I believe in God, but religion is a failed experiment.
I find it amazing that by 2020 first world countries will be competing to get immigrants.
The problem is, his alleged words don't make him more credible either. Mainly because, most of what he said had been said before him by people that are not claimed to be God men, or God-inspired, or a son of God. Thus, we have proof that regular people are capable of thinking up things like the Golden Rule or love thy enemy.
What evidence does science give on God?
Also, just as miraculous horrible things happen too. Anecdotal evidence is rather useless because people tend to leave things out of their story.. even if they don't think they're lying. And just by statistical probability, miraculous things are supposed to happen.
As to the topic at hand. No. No belief whatsoever. I have seen zero proof of anything supernatural. Your example of Sathya Sai Baba seems a bit shady. A whole bunch of believers giving 'eyewitness' accounts, yet no controlled situations for his miracles. I call bull. Not saying you believe in your example, or anything, but it's about as believable as the Jesus story, or any other mythology for that matter.
I think religion is really about the fear of dying. Or rather, fear in general. It gives answers to life's questions where none exist. I'm okay with knowing that the only thing that has ever been proven about death is that it is the end. Done. Period. Everything else is just wild fantasy.
- LC
That's so weird that you look around and see no proof anywhere of God. Yet, I can look around and see it everywhere. Just sitting outside on my porch and feeling the breeze makes me think about God. Maybe you're just not willing to see the Christian idea of God. There are other beliefs out there. And even every individual within those beliefs has their own unique views and experience.Have you ever considered Deism?
--------------------------------------
The world from your porch can be explained better by science.
NO. I'm a born again athiest. I think religion is bad for the same reasons richard dawkins does. basically just look up some richard dawkins quotes the man is a genius.
but I'll give you one:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins
My blog:
Yes I'm a theist. I've been on a philosophy course for two years now, and announced that on our last day. Everyone was gobsmacked, because I neither act, nor talk like a theist.
I suppose in a way I'm out to disprove God's existance, because I would much rather a world based entirely in the realms of the comprehendable and the controllable than an element of mysticism within the world. So I will counter any proof for God's existance until true proof (i.e. not evidence, actual irrefutable proof) is presented me, at which point the failure to counter it will be enough for me to entirely embrace whichever God is proven by said proofs.
I suppose my contribution to this debate will be a logical proof for God's non-existance. This is what I just wrote an exam question on, so I figure I'll go with this one. Basically, I like combining different philosophical/theological arguments from different 'subjects' (e.g. Theodicy's and Language Games) to further discredit different arguments for the existance of God. This is one of those combinations, and was in response to a class-mate mentioning that Plantinga's idea of 'possible worlds' arguably rests the burden of proof on the atheist to prove God's existance to be a logical impossibility. Anyway, to most of you that means fuck all, so I'll get into the argument:
The argument is based on two premises. The first is from C.S. Lewis talking about theodicy's (arguments for why there is evil and suffering in the world of an omnipotent+omniscient+omnibenevolent God). It was someone like Hume or something that said that God couldn't exist because if he possessed the above qualities, he could make a square a circle, or more usefully, could have created a world that we could both be tested in, and never experience evil in. If it was necessary for us to understand evil for some reason (a common theodicy) then he could do it without us ever having to suffer. C.S. Lewis countered, saying that it's idiocy to attribute 'nonsense' statements to God's abilities. Essentially saying that God can do ANYTHING, -within- the laws of his own universe. An octopus CANNOT have 4 legs is the example I think.
The second is from Anselm's Ontological argument for the existance of God. The argument itself isn't worth addressing as it's been discredited more than almost any argument I can think of. However, it's Anselm's definition of God that is important. He defines God as 'That which nothing greater than can be conceived.' This is ultimately what you would HAVE to accept to be the definition of God (or at least, the God of classical theism).
The conclusion from these two premises is that the God of classical theism CANNOT exist. It IS a logical impossibility. If he is as Lewis says, bound to the laws of the universe, or bound to anything, then we can immediately conceive of a greater being (one NOT bound by those laws), and thus God isn't God. If he isn't bound as Lewis says, then there is no acceptable justification for evil and suffering in the world.
Hope that all makes sense - tried to keep it as simple -and- complex as possible, as I appreciate we've got some great minds here, and also some that just like to dabble in these debates, and are more specialised in other areas than Ontology and Theodicy
If anyone wants clarification on anything, just say.
Prexix, in your original post, you asked if we believed in God. I said I did. Now you are essentially asking for proof: credibility is about proof because the only real ways to create credibility are appeals to authority or providing factual evidence of some sort.
You then went on to try to say that this scrub you brought up is no different from Jesus because he does miracles, and so why don't we give him the same respect/worship or change our lives around what he says. I then told you why: because miracles (even if they are real) are not why people became Christians, and it's not at the core of Christianity.
So, you asked, I answered. If this is going to devolve into another faith vs facts thread, then it's really pointless, as there are numerous threads of this nature to be found on this site.
PS, I was careful to try to use 'alledged' and make mention of belief precisely because I knew that it was a faith-based matter and didn't want to make claims of unvarnished fact. It seems to me that this thread is just another excuse to try to attack the faith of Christians.