Do you believe in God?

[DarthHookah]

i did not feel like reading three pages worth of posts, but has anyone said anything about anton lavey? i used to read a lot of his stuff.

[Sonthert]

OH, great, the crash lost tons of posts!

[ghostofdavid]

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[DarthHookah]

well, at least it didnt lose my post!

[Claytron]

[quote name='Tangiers']OH, great, the crash lost tons of posts![/quote]OHHHHHH SHIT. This is the first time such a thing would piss me off... we had written pages and pages worth of posts here. : ::sigh:: I was gonna back it up myself a few days ago, but figured it'd be safe for a while - guess I was wrong.

[Sonthert]

Did you see the last post I wrote? It must have been 10000 words. Oh, yeah Darth, really good that realy long post of yours is safe. [IMG]smileys/smiley36.gif" align="middle" /> OK, I guess a reroll the ball. GOD made the point that science and the bible are in harmony. I disagree, I present my Mitochondrion dissertation, shortened, to counter this point.Mitochondrion are residents of each of our cells. They are believed to be ancient invaders that became integral for life, hundreds of millions of years before the dinosaurs would rule the Earth. They have their own DNA, which is significantly different than human DNA, it is shorter, for one thing. Mitochondria (plural of mitochondrion) have cell walls, within each of our cells. Each of our mitochondria has the identical genetic structure, which is the same as your mother's mitochondrial DNA since your mother gave you your first one in the egg cell that you were born from. This is exceptionally useful, because when crime scenes have been washed/cleaned with bleach/ammonia to destroy DNA to mask the evidence, mitochondrial DNA is still safe and undamaged frequently. Cell walls protect and isolate the mitochondrial DNA from harm, the same way cell walls on regular bacteria protect it from harm. Forensic scientists can recover it and determine one thing, which family line a person comes from. You have the same as your mother and, all the same as your mother's sons and daughters as well as your maternal grandmother and all her children. Now, if we read the bible as fact, everybody would have identical mitochondrial DNA since everybody is a direct descendent of Eve. In fact, there are millions and millions of different types of mitochondrial DNA, scientifically disproving the story of creation by god in the bible. If you have already dismissed the story of Creation as hokum, you're in good shape. It also disproves the "lone nut" theory, or lone mutation theory, that evolutionary changes, including humans are the result of random mutations where two random mutants start making babies. It tends to support the idea that evolution was happening repeatedly, over and over. The nearly humans were giving birth to humans in mass numbers. Edit: Upon reading Wikipedia, apparently new research has been done. It suggests some paternal inheretance of mitochondrial DNA occurs. This makes no never-mind, this would increase the number of possible mitochondrial DNA sequences the story of the bible would allow from one to two. This still does not explain the existence of millions of prototypes. Also, it opens up a door on the possibility that relatives of the Homo Sapiens evolved simultaneously, but died out.

[Claytron]

I dunno if I saw it or not. I'm still miffed about loosing all that writing. There was probably collectively 10-20 hours worth of writing that vaporized. A fine example about why nightly database backups are a must.

[Sonthert]

Well, OK. I lost at least as much as you did. What about the mitochondrial DNA evidence? Doesn't this tend to make the creation story of the Bible impossible, proving the Bible is fictional?

[ghostofdavid]

"OK, I guess a reroll the ball. GOD made the point that science and the bible are in harmony. I disagree, I present my Mitochondrion dissertation, shortened, to counter this point."If we have forms of Mitochondrial DNA residuals in our DNA, how does this disprove the theistic idea behind a God character ? Allow me to unpack what I said earlier to further discuss what we would like to dialogue about in the future.If you take the Bible or the Creation story, in specific, to dialogue regarding Science, you will be sorely disappointed. Will it because of conflicting or contradictory evidence? No. It is because the Bible is not a book of science that addresses problems the modern scientific mind would ask. Is it then, by default, at fault? It depends. It is if you try to use it as a textbook to determine how our earliest earth origins came to be. The point of Genesis is not “How was this done?” nor was the ancient mind terribly concerned with those questions. Rather, the point of Genesis is “Where are we going?” not how many mitochondrial fragments can dance on the head of a pin. Consider the audience of Genesis. They were an oppressed people group given rise to rebellion and wondering about what their roots were. Whether born in Egypt under a harsh ruler, born in the Wilderness during Israel’s wandering, or born under exile, all of them have Israel asking a series of questions, much as the modern reader would:1. What are my roots?2. Where am I going now?3. Where will I be going in the future?Genesis tells an account that something happened between man and God that demanded reconciliation between the two. Starting with the Genesis, the story is told of what God is doing to reach out to humanity to reconcile the difference that had been brought about between the two. If you are criticizing a Fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible that childishly demands that the creation story is literal and word for word an exact dictation from God to man, then I am on the same sideline that you are cheering for. Could Adam and Eve been a real person? I am not arrogant enough to say no. Do I believe it? Not necessarily. It would seem to me that they are agents in a story to represent the collectives of male and female consciousness who have sinned (wronged) God in one way or another, be it external or internal.C.S. Lewis believed that when the simplest mind (be it homo sapiens or ancients derivative of homo sapiens ) decided that the self was more important than the subjugation to God is when sin was born. He then continues his discuss to say that this sin (selfishness) is generally at the root of every other person. To read the Bible, most of it must be read in the same way that good poetry is read. This is especially true for the Old Testament and the fault of fundamentalist Christianity. Context is the most important idea in Biblical interpretation. The vehicle of the message is not nearly as important as the message itself. According to the discussion of mitochondrions, I would say that Scientific evidence points to a literal reading of Adam and Eve as being false. I would not say that one piece of understanding of mitochondrion activity completely disproves something. Science, much like life, is evolving and the search for truth is constantly molding it into something stronger, something harder. We’ll see what happens when more evidence is revealed regarding mitochondrions and I thank you for sharing such an unfamiliar concept with me. I would like to read and see what the Deistic and Theistic Scientific community would say regarding mitochondrion activity. Tangiers, we will never come to an agreement about God, faith or religion because we both approach faith from completely different perspectives. I respect your opinion that completely disregards my own because it is a reality that must be addressed.Maybe this will help get some dialogue going.

[Onion]

[quote name='Mathazar']Jesus Christ is a hoax,  it was a way for the Romans to gaincontrol of the masses by creating the Church of Jesus Christ.  [/quote] I respect your opinions, but I'm going to have to tell you that you're wrong on this one.Christianity was born completely aside from the Romans. I'm fairly certain there are records of jesus existing (however, I cant cite that at the moment). What he was is up to question (the devine or an illusionist). After the death of Jesus, his followers began christianity as a sect of judaism. Eventually, St Paul would push the geographical borders of the sect, and it eventually broke off into its own religion. The Romans were NOT cool with christians at all, (being that the romans evolved their religion to focus on their god-emperor to make people more loyal, but christians wouldnt worship the emperor because they only worship one power). The jews were allowed to not worship the emperor because the romans had immense respect for antiquity and respected the ancient jewish religion. Whenever there was crisis in the empire, the emperors would persecute the christians heavily (a good way to relieve some tension) and one time an emperor tried to irradicate all the christians within the empire (referred to as the Great Persecution or something like that).The persectution ended in 311 CE, and only a couple years later one of the emperors (the name escapes me at the moment) converted to christianity after he believed God helped him win a great battle (I think it might have been emperor Constantine). Only then did the Roman Empire take christianity, and create the legacy thats left today.So ya, I can understand your skepticism against christianity (I'm not terribly devoted in any way shape or form), but to say that it was the complete construct of the romans to take control of their people is false. A monotheistic religion is something they REALLY didnt want their people to have

[Sonthert]

No, you missed the point, GOD> I'm sorry, I stopped reading when your topic sentence missed my point. Inside almost every one of our cells is a nucleus, which contains our DNA. Also inside almost all of our cells are mitochondria, which have their own individual DNA, which is different than ours, but the same down the maternal line of our families. It doesn't change through the ages. Thats what I am referring to. they are completely separate strands of DNA, in physically different parts of the cell. Essentially, the Book of Genesis, regarding the Creation of the Universe is false. Therefore, the bible is a work of fiction, defined as a book that has one or more fictitious parts. From that, I say the idea of God is absurd, using a work of fiction to prove there is such a thing is even more insane, so whatever homilies you wish to dance on, doesn't change the fact its fiction...untruths, lies. Try this...prove there is a God without using theological work, the bible or books that use the bible as a source. I've proven, more or less, that the primary source material to prove his existence is fictitious, therefore, it cannot be used for a deliberate, sensible debate as a well of information. You can describe and redescribe the bible all you want, prove that the bible is correct in its entirety. I've proven one part is false, meaning the whole thing could be false. Thats the problem, though, the reverse logic doesn't hold up, although the christian "scientific" world wants it to...if you prove one part of the bible is true, that doesn't make the entire book true. One day all religion will fade away and be so many odd relics, like dinosaur bones and steam engines. Once practical, then to be absurdities. I hope I am alive on that day, for peace will sweep the planet and we can work together to make ourselves and our world a better place.

[Skimo]

lol but its a good book non the less, ok ive never read it but it has some good quoteables for life haha and im atheist, so it cant be a bad read can it?

[SanguineSolitude]

i havent really read most of the post but ive been skimming and would like to add my 2 cents. First of all i was raised a christian and became an agnostic through reason. the more ive thought about god and the bible the more the concepts in it seem like what i would make up if i wanted to subdue people and get them to follow rules. I would go so far as to say religion can even be useful for such purposes, but no more than a non god based system of morality.i would like to point something out in the bible that has always troubled me. When Moses and Aaron are talking to pharaoh and asking to let his people go yadayada, Aaron throws down his staff and what happens? God turns it into a snake. now thats ok no problems with that, almighty god turns staff into snake. But then the pharaohs priests "using their secret arts" throw down their staffs and they too turn into snakes which are overpowered and eaten by Moses snake. BUT their staffs turned into snakes too! logically, since they werent calling on the power of the christian god, either their gods(anubis, raa, etc) must have turned the staffs to snakes or they must have known real magic. now it is fairly well believed that magic doesnt exist, so what does that leave us... go read it (Exodus 7:8- 7:13)thats one of the passages that caused me some trouble. Its like whoever was making up the bible wasnt trying hard enough.i found this quote somewhere on the internet"i contend that we are both atheists, i just believe in one fewer god than you do. when you realize why you dismiss all the other gods, you will realize why i dismiss yours."i take this to mean that people are all so sure their own religion is right, but most never have questioned it and simply dismiss others as foolishly wrong. if they used the same critical eye they cast on other religions they would likely dismiss their own. who knows.

[Onion]

[quote name='Tangiers']Essentially, the Book of Genesis, regarding the Creation of the Universe is false. Therefore, the bible is a work of fiction, defined as a book that has one or more fictitious parts. From that, I say the idea of God is absurd, using a work of fiction to prove there is such a thing is even more insane, so whatever homilies you wish to dance on, doesn't change the fact its fiction...untruths, lies.  Try this...prove there is a God without using theological work, the bible or books that use the bible as a source. I've proven, more or less, that the primary source material to prove his existence is fictitious, therefore, it cannot be used for a deliberate, sensible debate as a well of information. You can describe and redescribe the bible all you want, prove that the bible is correct in its entirety. I've proven one part is false, meaning the whole thing could be false. Thats the problem, though, the reverse logic doesn't hold up, although the christian  "scientific" world wants it to...if you prove one part of the bible is true, that doesn't make the entire book true.  One day all religion will fade away and be so many odd relics, like dinosaur bones and steam engines. Once practical, then to be absurdities. I hope I am alive on that day, for peace will sweep the planet and we can work together to make ourselves and our world a better place.[/quote]To say that one thing (that many disregard as a simple fable written to help people understand how the creation of a planet would come about) is untrue, therefore all things within the bible are untrue seems a bit rash. As you say, it is incredibly difficult to prove anything in the bible to be complete truth, but how much else can you prove to be complete fabrication? For instance, the bible speaks of the roman empire. We certainly know that this empire once existed, and it is known that they crucified people. Thus, we have arrived at 2 historical facts in the bible, therefore there is at least the slightest bit of truth within this utter complete work of fiction.Furthermore, how much rubbish can we say for certain is actually in the creation story? For instance, how long is the 'day' in the story? Do we have basis for any of the definition of the words in the book? What can we say is real, and what can we say is metaphor? If we cant accurately define the language used, or isolate any poetic devices, to what degree are we certified to rule any of it out? [quote name='sanguinesolitud']words[/quote]probably the best post in the thread

[ghostofdavid]

[quote name='Tangiers']No, you missed the point, GOD> I'm sorry,  [/quote] Like any good piece of writing, you missed the point if you didn't read it from beginning to end. I'll give you a C - for effort though. Dude, my point in explaining the history of Genesis addresses the issue of Mitos. Re-read it and get back to me.If you take the Bible for what it is, historically, I repeat what has already been said. It is several books, written over a thousand years, by several authors of flawed character. Murders, adulterers, deviants and all of those who suffer in the same way that you and I do. Again, using something untheological to prove theology is a bit like demanding a cooking recipe and asking that you only use sheet music to accomplish the task.One thing that humanity and history has taught us is that humanity is hopelessly religious and religion and spirituality will never die out. Name a civilazation without religion. To my knowledge, one has never existed without deifying an object, thing, idea or person. And so goes round TWO!!

[Skimo]

wow so i wonder if you brought this up to a preacher and said everything that has been stated what his response would be, i tried before but all he could say was "you gotta have faith" which is the shittiest reply in the world

[SanguineSolitude]

one of my aquaintences who is a rabid baptist has a quote on his facebook(god im such a college kid) that says "faith is believing when common sense tells you not to"he uses this as an inspirational quote. I think its exactly the problem with many religious folks. If you can justify your faith and give a reason, even if only to yourself then thats good. If you just believe despite evidence to the contrary... then you would probably be going to liberty univerity... which this kid is

[Sonthert]

GOD, I did read it, actually. Hence my line about "homilies". I don't suffer, thanks for the thought though. Only through religious belief do people suffer. Everything in my life is my creation, my responsibility. I have no suffering, no remorse, no guilt and no regret. I live each day in my way, answerable to myself. Thats why there is no suffering. Only when you differ with your god and his booky-book do you have conflict. My inner self is at peace for there is no conflict. To quote Devils Advocate:"Guilt is like a bag of bricks. Who are you carryin' that bag of bricks around for? God? He's an absentee landlord." All you have to do is set that bag of bricks down. You can be an athiest and still not violate any of the ten commandments. Skimo:People who base their lives on tenuous suppositions that everyone knows are fantasies to begin with cant go around questioning things. What did you expect him to say "You're right, I leaving the order."...he's been in denial long enough you can guess he knows its true. Sanguine: Good points. I love the part in the movie MASH, referring to their new religious bunkmate, played by Robert Duvall:"You ever see anything like that, before?""Not in anyone over the age of 8."Implying as people get older, they stop believeing in god as real, as you did (or agnosticised, whatever)...what ever happened to that? Onion: See, there's that christian thinking...all or nothing. Its warped your mind, you can't use simple logic! I said:A. The story of Genesis is false, here's the evidence.B. The book of Genesis is a book of the bible.C. The book of Genesis is a work of fiction, since it contains false parts.D. The bible is also a work of fiction, since it contains the book of Genesis, which contains false parts. So, the bible is a work of fiction...that doesn't mean that the entire book is false...but you can't just assume that the rest of the book is true either. It calls into question the rest of the bible's voracity as a source of information. Almost all fictitious works have some true parts...if they didn't, they would be incomprehensible. Just because "Sherlock Holmes" novels are set in London doesn't make them true. London is real, but that doesn't make the text overall any more true and any information in it wouldn't be applicable to a serious debate. In the same sense, there are parts of the bible that are verifiable and true, but it is a work of fiction and therefore should be treated as such...no part of the bible, unless otherwise independently verified as true can be assumed to be true. No work of fiction should be used as support for an argument, otherwise I get to start using "1984", "Clockwork Orange" and "Star Wars" as sources for debate. So here's the problem, everybody, what about god? The problem is, the christian people have deviated this conversation away from god to the bible...it is a sinkhole...what about god? I want to hear other people's beliefs, outside of reference to the bible. Lets talk about god more, lets talk about our feelings...no fiction, no bible, us, individually, what do you guys think? I think there couldn't possibly be a god because of the beauty of the world. For someone to have created such a thing would be impossible. Additionally, there are so many different religions that say fundamentally different things, they all can't be right, so they must all be wrong.

[SanguineSolitude]

i am agnostic because i do not believe in the existence of god, but i also am not certain enough of its nonexistence to claim atheism. (though im getting there.)God is a concept that is so foreign to me that it seems nonsensical. What reason have we for believing in an omnipotent, omnipresent, benevolent all powerful being. do we use faulty reasoning like Descartes who said (paraphrased) "nothing comes from nothing, therefore thoughts all come from something. I have a thought of an infinite being i call god, therefore those thoughts must come from the real thing." this is obviously bad reasoning since the same argument could be used to prove the existence of unicorns or goblins.for me, the existence of god just doesnt make sense. I dont see how the concept of an all powerful god, who creates a planet full of pets and tries to get some of them to tell him how all powerful he is, all the while alowing bad things to happen to others, is at all reasuring. (i edited this because i didnt finish the sentence the first time)p.s. the story of job is FUCKED UP!!! read it and think about what a kind god he is.some people believe in the bible as absolute truth. do these people know the origin of the bible? in 382 pope damascus picked the books he believed to be true both for the old testament, and out of all the many gospels that were floating around. this was later shuffled around a bit more by the protestants. in addition it is a fact that even early christians didnt neccessarily believe jesus was gods son, this also was put to a vote at the council of nicaea in 325 ad. (they decided upon the nicene creed to affirm jesus's divinity) so this absolute book was made from many separate books put together by the catholic church (oh and they had no bias to include what they liked right? just like the catholic church now has no political preferences) and even the status of the most important character in the bible was decided by the catholics by a vote. dont believe me? look it up its true. plus even then the catholic church believed women to be inferior to men and so didnt include doctrines that might have reflected a equality between men and women.ok i need to stop ranting. God is either everywhere or nowhere, and i havent found him anywhere. logically...

[Soup]

[quote name='sanguinesolitud']God is a concept that is so foreign to me that it seems nonsensical.[/quote]

Exactly! God is a concept. God is an idea. Satan is also an idea. There is no real God or Devil, just the capasity inside us for both good (which we call God) and evil (the Devil). These capasities were given names and histories by the creators of Christianity. The concept of God was a good concept, but like many other concepts, it didn't turn out how it was intended.

[quote name='sanguinesolitud']I dont see how the concept of an all powerful god who created a planet full of pets and tries to get some of them to tell him how all powerful he is while killing others off for fun.[/quote]

God is not killing people off for fun, people are doing it. For their belief in God, they kill eachother and theirselves. This is what went wrong with the concept of God. Since when does a holy, peaceful, caring being desire the deaths...the blood...of those who do not follow its "divine plan"? Why is it when God talks to you and tells you to do something, it is called being a prophet, but when the Devil does, it's called possession?

[quote name='sanguinesolitud']some people believe in the bible as absolute truth.[/quote]
[quote name='sanguinesolitud']so this absolute book was made from many separate books put together by the catholic church (oh and they had no bias to include what they liked right? just like the catholic church now has no political preferences)[/quote]

Most christians believe the bible to be the absolute truth. They can't seem to see the stories included. It is absolutely obsurd. It's like starting a religion based on the Grimm's fairy tales. They both have the same style of stories in it. The only difference is one is accepted as just stories.

The bible was just penned to keep the rich rich and the poor poorer. Tith, my ass!!!

I can't say the world would be better if there was no religion...I can't say it wouldn't.

[SanguineSolitude]

im not saying other religions dont do the same. but at least muslims are told that the quran is word for word from gods mouth. (B.S. imo) but at least they have a reason to believe every word.

[Skimo]

lol yeah i guess your right tangiers, but when i try to hint to my mom that im atheist she trys to force me to go to church and talk to people like him, which never really talk they just answer everything with you have to have faith and blah blah blah

[MilqueToast]

Interesting comments from most of you. I was raised Roman Catholic, and once logic hit me at around 8, I stopped buying the BS of the Catholic Church. I still clung to Christianity until I was about 14. At this point I claimed agnosticism, and after until about 5 months ago, this is where I stood. It seemed that I re-found God (as though such an "all-powerful" God would hide). It felt genuine. It felt like I had just been awakened from the best nap ever. I consider it a spiritual high. I'm taking several courses about different religions currently, and it just seems that logically, there is no absolute. Religion is completely devoid of logic. What makes smoke a purifying agent? The idea of reward through a moral life is completely negated in the Bible. One mistake costs Moses his Promised Land. Job gets royally screwed--but God gives him MORE in the end. Does that fix all the pain he felt? What about his former family, did they deserve to die and be in such agonizing pain? Why would one want to eat and drink even symbolic body/ blood? Not even Sigfreed and Roy (whose names I totally just butchered) compare as magicians to ANY of the "miracles"performed in the Bible. Are logical human beings to believe that technology can increase exponentially, but magic digresses to an even greater degree? Where are God's people now? Anyways, the more religions I study (even on a superficial degree), the more I am inclined to believe that all religions are illogical. Do I believe in God? Sure. As soon as he shows himself to be separate from religion.

[ghostofdavid]

Abraham - Liar
Jacob - Trickster, Deceiver, Liar
Moses - Murderer
David - Murderer, Adulterer
Paul - Murderer, Braggart,

Five foundational characters from the Bible. All of them shown to be immoral to an extent. All of them have their own point beind the story of the Hebrew/Jewish people and contribution to bring to the table of faith. All of them are failures. Yet, in the faith that they represent each failure they experience ends up being a life devoted to spiritual success.

Morality is supposed to be a gauge that shows how "in tune" you are with the divine as your actions are what you believe, manifested into a visible reality. If morality equalled heaven then none of the "founders of the faith" would be allowed in to the gates.

Faith, forgiveness and atonement (substitutionary, or not) seems to be the focus of Judaisim/Christianity rather than morality equating to a place in heaven. It will take pages to unpack all of those basic statements.

[Soup]

Very good, Ghost.

Religion is just a set of morals and values (common sense, really) that the perticular region it was founded in deems right, or, acceptable.