Does God exist? (13 Viewers)

[impervious182]

Rubbish, if the literal interpretation of the bible were kept than;

• The earth would be 6000 years.
• Unicorns would be real creatures.
• If i raped a Girl, i could pay 30-50 pieces of silver (depending which passage you chose) to the father and marry her.

These are only off the top of my head.

Whose taking it literally? Genesis is not literal... and much of the Old Testament is revisited in the New Testament... I'm pretty sure 2 is not true at all and as for 3, I don't think that that's correct - especially not in the New Testament.

It's called the Bible, not the bible.

 

[nikolas]

Whose taking it literally? Genesis is not literal... and much of the Old Testament is revisited in the New Testament... I'm pretty sure 2 is not true at all and as for 3, I don't think that that's correct - especially not in the New Testament.

2 is in Genesis (i think), 3 is in the old testament, Deuteronomy.

I was merely pointing out that the Bible, just like worshiping the Olympic Gods is far fetched when interpreting them both literally.

It's called the Bible, not the bible.

Let the issues, be the issues please.

 

[impervious182]

2 is in Genesis (i think), 3 is in the old testament, Deuteronomy.

I was merely pointing out that the Bible, just like worshiping the Olympic Gods is far fetched when interpreting them both literally.

If I knew more about Greek mythology, I'm sure I would be able to contradict this better. I don't see why anyone would take Greek mythology any other way... it's descriptive and it's not a scripture, but most of it is derived from pottery etc. which clearly shows Olympus etc and was derived from aural stories within Greece... songs, poems etc... they believed that at the top of the mountain was Zeus... that was their belief... so I don't see why anyone would twist it to take on another meaning.

 

[tommykins]

sorry for the lack of rebuttals as i was out to dinner -

but alex, do you believe in christianity solely because other people do (accounts of thousands what not) and that it is comppasionate etc. etc.

if so, why not choose buddhism? it's practically the same thing except - God gives an added 'heaven/hell' twist etc.

 

[nikolas]

If I knew more about Greek mythology, I'm sure I would be able to contradict this better.

The point is, if was clever enough i could weave it around so much that you could not disprove it.

I don't see why anyone would take Greek mythology any other way... it's descriptive and it's not a scripture, but most of it is derived from pottery etc. which clearly shows Olympus etc and was derived from aural stories within Greece... songs, poems etc... they believed that at the top of the mountain was Zeus... that was their belief... so I don't see why anyone would twist it to take on another meaning.

People in the medieval ages believed the bible literally, just because the ancient Greeks did too, does not disprove the Olympic Gods especially when looked at with a modern-non-literal perspective.

 

[impervious182]

People in the medieval ages believed the bible literally, just because the ancient Greeks did too, does not disprove the Olympic Gods especially when looked at with a modern-non-literal perspective.

I can explain how when Genesis is not taken non-literally, the Bible makes more sense to me.

If you want to argue the non-literal interpretation of Greek mythology, then feel free to explain how this makes more sense to you. Personally, I don't see how it could sensibly be argued non-literally.

 

[impervious182]

sorry for the lack of rebuttals as i was out to dinner -

but alex, do you believe in christianity solely because other people do (accounts of thousands what not) and that it is comppasionate etc. etc.

if so, why not choose buddhism? it's practically the same thing except - God gives an added 'heaven/hell' twist etc.

No. I believe Christianity, because I have trialed it and I find solace in God. I find comfort in knowing that I can be forgiven. This is my experience with God, it's difficult to explain, but it's not based on evidence per say, but faith.

I just use the testimony argument to show that there is more evidence for Christianity than there is against it.

Finally, Buddhism is not the same thing at all. It preaches about resurrection and hundreds of gods; it's more actions based...

Sorry, I know this is a poor response. Maybe when I have more time to think about it, I'll write a proper, more logical one.

 

[tommykins]

No. I believe Christianity, because I have trialed it and I find solace in God. I find comfort in knowing that I can be forgiven. This is my experience with God, it's difficult to explain, but it's not based on evidence per say, but faith.

I just use the testimony argument to show that there is more evidence for Christianity than there is against it.

Finally, Buddhism is not the same thing at all. It preaches about resurrection and hundreds of gods; it's more actions based...

Sorry, I know this is a poor response. Maybe when I have more time to think about it, I'll write a proper, more logical one.

I'd have to correct you in that Buddhism doesn't fancy any Buddha's as Gods, they are simply human beings that have been enlightened. They are equals to every human.

I don't necessarily agree with the ressurection thing, brings forth too much of a 'spirit/soul' kind of idea.

Both religions condone 'good' actions.

 

[nikolas]

I can explain how when Genesis is not taken non-literally, the Bible makes more sense to me.

If you want to argue the non-literal interpretation of Greek mythology, then feel free to explain how this makes more sense to you. Personally, I don't see how it could sensibly be argued non-literally.

I believe I've already provided an example of a non-literal interpretation.

I don't think either religions make sense, both stories are woven in such a way that, neither be disproved, and shown to make "pseudo-sense."

But i for one think that jumping towards a conclusion in the absence of good arguments/proofs/evidences/etc does not make sense.

 

[nikolas]

No. I believe Christianity, because I have trialed it and I find solace in God. I find comfort in knowing that I can be forgiven. This is my experience with God, it's difficult to explain, but it's not based on evidence per say, but faith.

This...is...wishful...thinking...at...best... trust me, i think i speak for most athiests when i say we would all love to live in a world with a good and rational God, we however, simply don't believe this is the case.

I'm not willing to have faith, like tommykins has said, faith is the equivalent of skipping all the working out and then jumping to the conclusion that x=2 or whatever the case.

I just use the testimony argument to show that there is more evidence for Christianity than there is against it.

We don't need to provide evidence against, you need to provide good evidence for. See Russel's teapot and negative proof fallacy.

Sorry, I know this is a poor response. Maybe when I have more time to think about it, I'll write a proper, more logical one.

Indeed.

 

[emytaylor164]

i want proof the big man exists.

I think that even if we could prove it you would not believe it

 

[moll.]

No. I believe Christianity, because I have trialed it and I find solace in God. I find comfort in knowing that I can be forgiven. This is my experience with God, it's difficult to explain, but it's not based on evidence per say, but faith.

I just use the testimony argument to show that there is more evidence for Christianity than there is against it.

Finally, Buddhism is not the same thing at all. It preaches about resurrection and hundreds of gods; it's more actions based...

Sorry, I know this is a poor response. Maybe when I have more time to think about it, I'll write a proper, more logical one.

You evidently know nothing about which you speak. Buddhism can be taken as as a theistic or atheistic or even deistic religion, it does not matter. There are not hundreds of gods, just hundreds of reincarnations of the same soul, namely the Buddha Gautama. For you to decry a religion simply because of it's belief in resurrection, however, is the grandest example of hypocrisy i have seen. Did not your Saviour get resurrected from the dead?
In fact, it is highly possibly to be both a Christian and a Buddhist simultaneously. The main precept of Budhism is simply inner-enlightenment (or inner-peace) which is gained through charitable acts and modesty in all actions. If one were to combine a belief of Jahveh and that Christ was a Buddha-like figure of redemption with this belief, it would not be contradictry. In fact, Neitzsche theorises in his thesis The Anti-Christ that Jesus was in fact a Buddha-like figure, come on to the Earth to rebel against the power and privilege of the Jewish preisthood and to show the masses that salvation wasn't neccessarily lying in the next life but instead was attainable in this one. However, Nietzsche then continues to say that after his death, the entire meaning of his words and life was undermined and altered by Peter, Paul and the power-hungry early Christian priesthood in order to create a new Jewish sect which was just as bad as it's forebearers.

 

[impervious182]

You evidently know nothing about which you speak. Buddhism can be taken as as a theistic or atheistic or even deistic religion, it does not matter. There are not hundreds of gods, just hundreds of reincarnations of the same soul, namely the Buddha Gautama. For you to decry a religion simply because of it's belief in resurrection, however, is the grandest example of hypocrisy i have seen. Did not your Saviour get resurrected from the dead?
In fact, it is highly possibly to be both a Christian and a Buddhist simultaneously. The main precept of Budhism is simply inner-enlightenment (or inner-peace) which is gained through charitable acts and modesty in all actions. If one were to combine a belief of Jahveh and that Christ was a Buddha-like figure of redemption with this belief, it would not be contradictry. In fact, Neitzsche theorises in his thesis The Anti-Christ that Jesus was in fact a Buddha-like figure, come on to the Earth to rebel against the power and privilege of the Jewish preisthood and to show the masses that salvation wasn't neccessarily lying in the next life but instead was attainable in this one. However, Nietzsche then continues to say that after his death, the entire meaning of his words and life was undermined and altered by Peter, Paul and the power-hungry early Christian priesthood in order to create a new Jewish sect which was just as bad as it's forebearers.

Congratulations. You misinterpreted every single word of my post. I didn't think it could be done, but BoS posters are reaching new heights every single day.

An explanation to come soon.

 

[moll.]

Congratulations. You misinterpreted every single word of my post. I didn't think it could be done, but BoS posters are reaching new heights every single day.

An explanation to come soon.

So you were kidding when you said Buddhism is about "resurrection and hundreds of gods" and that this is the reason why it's "different" to Christianity? Quick kiddo, reverse! Reverse!.

 

[impervious182]

This...is...wishful...thinking...at...best... trust me, i think i speak for most athiests when i say we would all love to live in a world with a good and rational God, we however, simply don't believe this is the case.

\

Why not? And rational by whose definition? How would we know if God were 'rational'? The whole basis of Christianity is that we, as humans, can not always understand the purpose of the decisions of the Lord... so rational is not a very good adjective to use. And what does 'good' mean? What would a 'good god' act like?

I'm not willing to have faith, like tommykins has said, faith is the equivalent of skipping all the working out and then jumping to the conclusion that x=2 or whatever the case.

Then that's it. Case closed.

The basis of Christianity is faith, just like the basis of any belief in the big bang, structure of atoms and so on. You say that you won't have faith, but you already do, even to believe in science. What's required for something to be proven by your standards? What would be suitable proof that God existed? A sample of heavenly cloud (lol)? An angel wing?

We don't need to provide evidence against, you need to provide good evidence for. See Russel's teapot and negative proof fallacy.

Indeed.

You can cite Russel's teapot and negative proof fallacy as much as you like, but the fact is, the burden of proof is not on me at all. I am content believing in Christianity; whether or not you do is beyond me.

The whole idea of a burdon of proof for me, in actuality, is quite ridiculous. I am making an assertion, if you wish to challenge this assertion, you should present evidence to contradict it. As it stands, like in a court of law in Australia, one is innocent until proven guilty - by the same notion, the onus of proof is on you if you wish to challenge the statement I have made. This is not a scientific proof, which works the other way. If you want it proven yourself you'll have to find your own answers...

And as for faith, I don't agree. Just because one can't explain something, doesn't mean one has jumped to a conclusion. Some things are beyond both human understanding and expression; it's as simple as that.

 

[emytaylor164]

So you were kidding when you said Buddhism is about "resurrection and hundreds of gods" and that this is the reason why it's "different" to Christianity? Quick kiddo, reverse! Reverse!.

i do not agree with the statement that it is possible to be a buddhist and a christian at the same time

 

[impervious182]

So you were kidding when you said Buddhism is about "resurrection and hundreds of gods" and that this is the reason why it's "different" to Christianity? Quick kiddo, reverse! Reverse!.

Erm... last time I checked, everyday Christians aren't resurrected/reborn. Erm... last time I checked, like I said before, Christianity doesn't say that our actions determine our position in this life, don't limit us in terms of a caste. That's a major difference between Buddhism and Christianity...

I'm curious though... why is it, that any Christian has to have a great knowledge of every other religion? If we're comfortable we've found the correct religion, why is it that a great knowledge of others is somehow our obligation to have? Yet it is alright for atheists to remain willfully ignorant? Just another example of hypocrisy on your part.

 

[Bboy-twoFousand]

Buddhism can be taken as as a theistic or atheistic or even deistic religion

For every person who has said this... Buddhism is technically not a religion.... it is a way of living your life to achieve enlightenment... Siddhattha Gotama or "Buddha" founded this.

Well Going on to GOD!!!!

[FONT=&quot]Speaking hypothetically, if there is a god then don’t you reckon that in order for us as his/her own creations to find our own way to the “good” path[/FONT] he/she would not interfer with the makings....

here is what i think.... to those who are christans pls do not take offence...

What most people question is the theroy of the beginning of the universe... There was god(he/she/it I do not know) God was the source of the big bang.... and the rest is history.... by luck asteroids containing bacteria hit earth and the result is the atmosphere....

If every thing is done with a soft touch some people will think of luck others will think of faith



Don't listen to me i dunno what i am talking about

 

[tommykins]

Erm... last time I checked, everyday Christians aren't resurrected/reborn. Erm... last time I checked, like I said before, Christianity doesn't say that our actions determine our position in this life, don't limit us in terms of a caste. That's a major difference between Buddhism and Christianity...

I'm curious though... why is it, that any Christian has to have a great knowledge of every other religion? If we're comfortable we've found the correct religion, why is it that a great knowledge of others is somehow our obligation to have? Yet it is alright for atheists to remain willfully ignorant? Just another example of hypocrisy on your part.

How are we remaining willfully ignorant when we are searching for reasons to believe in God and researching into other religions to be exposed to the broad range out there?

You're basically saying 'I like it here, won't move even if there are other religions that would suit me more, I'm too scared of change'.

 

[KillerIsMe]

For a person who does studies of religion, you make a few wrong assumptions about Christianity.

A teacher once explained it to me like this; we are in a time of transition, waiting until the Lord reappears to us again, as explained in Revelation. It is not the fault of God that people are in poverty and disease; but rather the fault of man, of evil. The Lord offers everyone, regardless of this evil, a chance of redemption and a chance to accept Him in our lives and enter the kingdom of Heaven.

Christianity is not an exclusionary religion. We should be trying to help those around us, be good Samaritans. We should love our fellow man. Christianity is not like the Hindu belief, in that people are born with ailments and illnesses because they did something in a previous life.

Rather they are born into a world of evil, on the brink of self-destruction. Born to a world though, with an offering of hope, of redemption and of love. This is the Christian belief.

Okay so, they are born with an offering of hope, redemption and love, yet they have no way out, no one to provide them this so called hope redemption and love? You're basically saying the one billion people who live in poverty, without access to clean water or education, and the thirty thousand children dying from poverty related preventable diseases, that's their fault? Where is the love in that? There has been enough money in the world since the 90's to eliminate poverty, yet 1/6 of the world still has under $1 a day.

I think it's easy for you to say it's all God's will and they have this hope and whatnot, because you've been born into one of the richest countries in the world. Had you been born in say, sub-saharan africa, you would not be thinking the same thing.