How Can Anyone Believe in God?

[Gamer4Fire]

I'm familiar with that hypothesis--my statement was basically me making a point about how half the people in this thread post vague examples without citing sources.

Thanks for the link, though. At least someone does it.

Hey, don't discount people who just use logic. I don't need to cite any sources for the existence of the universe or for the lack of evidence of any gods.

ETA:

stfu >_>

You know, telling the mod of this room to stfu could be harmful for your existence.

 

[cF=)]

Especially when the faithful are considered liars and harassed for their beliefs.

I have nothing more to add. The barrage normally set to avoid emotional bull**** from spreading here has broken. Thread has reached its end, sad but true.

 

[Kips]

Going off of that test, how would this work on a global scale? Where would all of this potential energy come from? Maybe a sun collapsing on itself? Could someone please explain to me, honestly, just where this potential energy could come from?

 

[Peeze]

and #4.......
A scientists years back put gases into a sealed container and shot electricity through it. In a few hours bacteria began to form to live off the gases, without any exposure to earth's atmosphere. After slowly changing the gases in more recent experiments the bacteria begin to adapt very slowly...

I'd love to see proof of that from a reliable source.

If you have proof of this, I would be willing to listen.

Um, just a few:
Micah 5:2 says jesus would be born in bethelem, history says he was.
Jeremiah 25:12 says the jews would be captive in slavery for 70 years, they were enslaved from 607 bce to 537 bce..70 years.
Even more specific?
Isaiah prophesied that Babylon would be overthrown by a leader named cyrus, and that he would cleverly divert the euphrates river that surrounded the city, and conquer it.
200 years later it happened.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_the_Great#Neo-Babylonian_Empire
http://www.persiandna.com/his_cyrus.htm
Couldn't find more well known sources.

 

[snex]

I'd love to see proof of that from a reliable source.

you wont because it never happened. he is probably referring to the miller-urey experiment which demonstrated that amino acids can be formed from simple materials that would have existed on the primitive and lifeless earth.

Micah 5:2 says jesus would be born in bethelem, history says he was.
Jeremiah 25:12 says the jews would be captive in slavery for 70 years, they were enslaved from 607 bce to 537 bce..70 years.
Even more specific?
Isaiah prophesied that Babylon would be overthrown by a leader named cyrus, and that he would cleverly divert the euphrates river that surrounded the city, and conquer it.
200 years later it happened.

want to know whats wrong with these prophecies? ill show you by example...

the oracle at delphi prophecied that oedipus would grow up to kill his father and marry his mother. then he did! hallelujah its a miracle! apollo is clearly the one true god.

1) we dont actually know "from history" where jesus was born (or if he ever was). we only have the gospel accounts' word on the matter. and they certainly had a reason to place jesus' birth in bethlehem!

2) and 3) prove these were written before the events, not after or during them. oh right, you cant.

 

[Peeze]

Isaiah was written around 778-732 bce.http://mb-soft.com/believe/txs/isaiah.htm(couldn't find more reliable sources other than wiki. Most other websites were religious in nature, and though they say the same thing, could be biased) 200 years before cyrus was even born.

Edit: oh and the oracle at delphi prophesied thousands of things. one or two every thousand proves nothing. Please, show me one prophecy in the bible that was incorrect.

 

[AltF4]

The bible says all kinds of ridiculous things we know to be incorrect, are you kidding Peeze? It says the Earth is flat, the Moon produces its own light, and the Sun revolves around a stationary Earth. The people who wrote it had no idea what they were talking about.

And furthermore, of course they wouldn't include prophecies that were blatantly false! If I wanted to write a book with prophecies in it, I'd probably leave out the ones that never came true. (Or just make up everything after the fact, but you know...)

 

[Peeze]

It never said the earth was flat chief. Are YOU kidding? It was the only book that said the earth was round.(isaiah 40:22) Your usually right. But that last post was incorrect the whole way around.

 

[AltF4]

The Bible refers on many occasions to "the ends of the earth" but in a literal fashion, not a figurative one. Also:

Job 11:9 The measure thereof is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea.

Hmmm, now how does a spherical Earth have a length? Ir doesn't. But a flat one does... because people back then thought the world was flat. Everyone did. Not just the bible writers.

Oh, and note that isaiah 40:22 (which you cited) says "circle of earth", a two-dimensional object. Rather than a sphere, a three dimensional object.


I can't believe I'm actually debating the scientific quality of the bible. Look, it's not even close to being true, any of it. It was written by men back in a time when we knew very little, and it shows. This is absurd.

 

[Peeze]

That scripture was taken completely out of context.
The verses surrounding it was talking about the limits of Gods knowledge. The verses before and after say it is higher than heaven and deeper than hell and longer than the earth in measure. A metaphor. How deep is hell? Or how high is heaven? Are those questions really logical, or meant to emphasize a point?

If the bible writers were influenced by the thinking of the day, then why does Job 26:7 say the earth is hung on nothing. Didn't people of that time believe that the earth was supported by turtles or held up by giants?

 

[snex]

isaiah was written by two or possibly even three different authors, all writing at different times. but you knew that because its on the wiki.

but even if the entire books of isaiah, jeremiah, etc, were all written by the one guy that they are claimed to have been written by, you cant prove that the "prophecies" werent later insertions to make the books look miraculous. we have nothing even close to the original copies (and even if we did, youd be forced to deny it because carbon dating is how we would know it) so you really have no idea what the originals said.

...and if you can take the "circle of the earth" as a metaphor, then you can take *anything* as a metaphor. including genesis, the flood, and the resurrection. you are the one trying to be a biblical literalist here, so lets see some consistency. the bible literally says that the earth is flat.

 

[Sandy]

GOD IS NOT EVIL, he did not create evil, the devil did, and we did. God did not create us to be robots and do whatever he says he gave us the freedom of choice, so in the beginning when eve chose to eat the forbidden apple and disobey God, it was her own fault

Prophesies to point out

The people of Israel would have a worldwide impact
Bible passage: Genesis 12:2-3
Written: perhaps 1400 BC
Fulfilled: Throughout history

In Genesis 12:2-3, and in Genesis 28:10-15, the Bible said that the descendants of Abraham and the descendants of Abraham's grandson, Jacob, would be a blessing for people worldwide. Jacob is the father of the 12 Tribes of Israel (the Jews). In 1898, Mark Twain wrote an essay for Harper's New Monthly Magazine that discussed how the Jews have had an impact on the world:

" … the Jews constitute but one percent of the human race. It suggests a nebulous dim puff of stardust lost in the blaze of the Milky Way. Properly, the Jew ought hardly to be heard of, but he is heard of, has always been heard of. He is as prominent on the planet as any other people, and his commercial importance is extravagantly out of proportion to the smallness of his bulk. His contributions to the world's list of great names in literature, science, art, music, finance, medicine, and abstruse learning are also way out of proportion to the weakness of his numbers. He has made a marvelous fight in this world, in all the ages; and had done it with his hands tied behind him. He could be vain of himself, and be excused for it. The Egyptian, the Babylonian, and the Roman followed, and made a vast noise, and they are gone. Other peoples have sprung up and held their torch high for a time, but it burned out, and they sit in twilight now, or have vanished. The Jew saw them all, beat them all… All things are mortal but the Jew; all other forces pass, but he remains. What is the secret of his immortality?" - Copyright 100prophecies.org

Genesis 12:2-3
"I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you."

Israel would be partitioned by other nations
Bible passage: Joel 3:2
Written: about 400 BC
Fulfilled: 1900s

In Joel 3:2, the prophet said that the nations of the world will be judged for having scattered the people of Israel and for having "divided up" (or "parted" or "partitioned") the land of Israel. Christian scholars believe that this is a prophecy that will be fulfilled during the End Times. But portions of the prophecy already have been fulfilled. The Jews have been scattered to nations throughout the world, and the nations of the world have divided up the land of Israel. On November 29, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly approved a motion to partition the land into two separate states, one for Jewish people and another for Arab people. - Copyright 100prophecies.org

Joel 3:2
I will gather all nations and bring them down to the Valley of Jehoshaphat. There I will enter into judgment against them concerning my inheritance, my people Israel, for they scattered my people among the nations and divided up my land.
(NOTE: "Jehoshaphat" means "the Lord judges.")

Israel would be restored and repopulated
Bible passage: Ezekiel 36:8-10
Written: between 593-571 BC
Fulfilled: late 1900s

In Ezekiel 36:8-10, the prophet Ezekiel said that the people of Israel would return, rebuild and repopulate their fallen cities. Ezekiel, according to the Bible, lived about 2600 years ago during the time of the Babylonian Captivity, when many Jews, including Ezekiel, were taken as captives to Babylon. After the Babylonian Captivity ended, many Jews returned to their homeland. But about 1900 years ago, the Jews again were forced into exile, this time by the Romans. However, since the late 1800s, millions of Jews have returned to their ancient homeland. And, once again, they have been rebuilding and repopulating their ancient cities. In 1948, there were about 600,000 Jews living in Israel. Today there are about 6,000,000.
- Copyright 100prophecies.org
Ezekiel 36:8-10
"`But you, O mountains of Israel, will produce branches and fruit for my people Israel, for they will soon come home. I am concerned for you and will look on you with favor; you will be plowed and sown, and I will multiply the number of people upon you, even the whole house of Israel. The towns will be inhabited and the ruins rebuilt.

 

[snex]

sandtiger, *every* holy book claims that its adherents would have major worldwide impact.

and since *every* society has a holy book, at least *one* of them had to be correct in that prophecy.

this is no different than people who win the lottery and claim "i knew i would win it!" yeah buddy, you and the other million people who played but didnt win.

come on, USE YOUR BRAIN BEFORE POSTING! do you even understand what would count as a valid prophecy, and why? or are you just repeating what they told you in sunday school? if its the latter, then please stop wasting my time. this is the debate hall, where users post THEIR arguments. if i wanted to go to your sunday school, i would.

 

[Peeze]

isaiah was written by two or possibly even three different authors, all writing at different times. but you knew that because its on the wiki.

but even if the entire books of isaiah, jeremiah, etc, were all written by the one guy that they are claimed to have been written by, you cant prove that the "prophecies" werent later insertions to make the books look miraculous. we have nothing even close to the original copies (and even if we did, youd be forced to deny it because carbon dating is how we would know it) so you really have no idea what the originals said.

...and if you can take the "circle of the earth" as a metaphor, then you can take *anything* as a metaphor. including genesis, the flood, and the resurrection. you are the one trying to be a biblical literalist here, so lets see some consistency. the bible literally says that the earth is flat.

When did i say i'm a biblical literalist? The bible is a book. Books contain figurative speech. Like all books, you use the context to discern whether something is literal or metaphorical. The context of that verse showed it to be a metaphor. If i said i would walk to the ends of the earth to find love would you take that literally? Use common sense. The bible literally says the earth is a circle. A circle is a 2-d sphere. By no means flat.

The idea that isaiah was written by two different people, was critiscm, it isn't fact. The dead sea scrolls found in 1945 contained the entire book of Isaiah written as one book. The writer didnt split it up, chapter 40, starts on the same line as chapter 39 ends. He was obviously unaware of any supposed change in writer or division in the book. The fact that the style changes proves nothing.

 

[snex]

a circle is a flat object. there is no indication that isaiah meant "circle" in a figurative way. ancient hebrew had words for spherical objects, and he could have used them and the passage would make just as much sense. "circle" was deliberately chosen because he thought the earth was flat. YOU claimed that the bible is never wrong on scientific facts, yet now you are trying to move the goalpost when an obvious absurdity was pointed out to you. the bible clearly teaches a flat earth. NOWHERE is a spherical earth indicated, and SEVERAL passages mention a flat one. not once is this clarified anywhere in the book itself.

and the idea that isaiah was written by two different people is based on GOOD historical and literarly scholarship - the SAME kind of scholarship that detects such things in other works that you agree were written by multiple authors. you cant claim the method suddenly fails when applied to the bible. the dead sea scrolls are irrelevant, as they are only 2000 years old, and isaiah was most certainly codified as one book by then (the gospel writers had access to it, DUH!)

 

[Peeze]

What do you consider flat? A circle is not flat. Something flat has sides. A circle has no sides. the prevalent idea of the time was the earth was a box. If he meant flat, why not say square?

Exactly, the copyist of the dead sea scrolls wouldn't write the book of isaiah with such continuicy if he knew that the book was two parts. For instance 2nd chronicles didnt start on the same line that 1st chronicles ended. That is a division. What same kind of scholarship are you talking about, and when did i say it doesnt apply to the bible?

 

[snex]

why would the writer of the dead sea scrolls know it was two separate books? he wouldnt, because they were written and codified hundreds of years before he was born. and you implied that it doesnt apply to the bible when you said "The idea that isaiah was written by two different people, was critiscm, it isn't fact. ... The fact that the style changes proves nothing." but literary style, amongst lots of other things, are exactly how you know *other* books have different authors. its how you know the apocrypha that you reject from the bible (but were in the dead sea scrolls!) werent written by the same people that wrote the gospels. its how you know the gospel of luke and the book of acts had the same author. its how you know the letters of paul (most of them anyway) were actually written by paul. if you want to reject this type of literary analysis, then fine. prove the letters of paul were all written by the same guy. oops, you cant, because you are no longer allowed to appeal to writing style.

and a circle is flat. you can stand on it, cant you? do i really need to give you 1st grade math lessons? or are you just purposely doing this because its the bible's credibility at stake?

 

[Peeze]

Thats what you meant by scholarship ok. Absolutely literary style is ONE of the ways that you know author. You even said that literary style" among other things determines author, but soley basing the argument that authors are different only on style is absurd. I'm sure that there are books that change style, point of view or diction from chapter to chapter, and are written by the same author.

The people in those times believed this would happen if you got to the end of the earth:
http://www.globalcultures.net/worldblog/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/flat-earth-society.jpg
It is impossible to fall off of a circle. And what does ability to stand on it have to do with anything? I can stand on a square or an exercise ball, does that mean its flat?

 

[snex]

I'm sure that there are books that change style, point of view or diction from chapter to chapter, and are written by the same author.

im sure there are too. but this isnt evidence that isaiah had one author. this is just you HOPING it did when the EVIDENCE indicates it didnt. do you have any EVIDENCE?

http://www.globalcultures.net/worldblog/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/flat-earth-society.jpg

it is perfectly possible for that event to happen on a circular earth, but not a spherical one. its also ironic that the image is by the "flat earth society" - a group dedicated to biblical literalism. they think the earth is flat *because the bible says so!*

 

[AltF4]

This whole tangent is absurd. Scientific advancement was stifled for centuries because the religious leaders of the time asserted biblical falsehoods as scientific fact. There to this day are people who believe the world is flat because the bible says so. The bible is not a source of scientifically accurate information. Nothing in it from people living in excess of 1000 years to a world wide flood make an ounce of scientific sense.

If you wish for these things to be meant metaphorically, then you're deluding yourself. People once believed that heaven was literally located on top of the clouds and that hell was literally located under the ground. Only when this was shown to be untrue and absurd was it labeled as "metaphorical".

In fact, you can view all of human history as the gradual classification of more and more of the bible as "meaphorical" as they are disproved. Yet people still try to grasp on to what little is left.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Wow, those peophecies were pretty well destroyed. Can you find anymore?

 

[snex]

of course he can. there are thousands of things in the bible that can be cleverly "interpreted" as prophecy, just as you can do with nostradamus. and there are thousands of websites listing them for him to copy and paste to us without any thinking on his part.

my favorite prophecy, however, is the one in ezekiel that says that nebuchadnezzar would destroy tyre. when he didnt destroy tyre, ezekiel makes *another* prophecy that he would be destroyed by cyrus. of course, cyrus was already in the process of destroying him as it was being written, so it isnt really that impressive.

whats so great about this prophecy is that it predicted that tyre would be laid to waste so badly that nobody would ever live there again. except... tyre still exists to this day, and has existed continuously since the failed prophecy was written.

 

[Peeze]

Lets get one thing straight. I may not be a good debater, but nothing i've ever said was copy and paste.

 

[snex]

i was referring to sandtiger

 

[graceofbass]

Let me preface with this: I am a devout believer in God and Christ. I was born into that faith, but that does not mean that it is blind. I have researched, and if I have learned anything, I have come to know for myself that there is a God and that He has a divine plan for all of humankind, His children. If you disagree, great. Really, that's great. But please don't say I'm dumb because I believe this. That would be like me saying that you're dumb because you believe in the Sun. It's just not worth arguing and in any case, is insulting to the believer. I've put some of Red Darkstar Kirby's questions out of order because I believe that the answers to some questions assist in the answers to others. Let's begin:

Why does the Almighty God, creator of the universe, desire a personal relationship with a sinful being? If He's an all-powerful God, won't He by default know anything and everything about us, thus making this "relationship" moot?

I believe that every person who has lived, is living, or will live on this earth is a son or daughter of God, our Heavenly Father. Because he is the literal Father of our spirits, or souls, he wants to know us and have a relationship with us, like our earthly fathers do (at least, most of them.) God knows we will sin because He made the earth, and He knows that Satan has the power to lead us astray and tempt us. So He wants us to have a personal relationship with Him so we can try to sin less, and if anything, repent of the sins we do commit.

Christians believe God is all-loving. Why would an all-loving God let the atrocities going on in our world happen? And another thing I don't get--why even create us when, being the omnipotent and omnipresent God He is, He must have known that we would have ****ed up royally and ****ed ourselves to an eternity in Hell?

I'll be honest and maybe a little blunt. God is loving, but he is also just. When we break one of the laws of God, such as killing someone (check the 10 Commandments on that one) we need to be punished for it, because if there is a law and no consequence for it, it ceases to be a law because it is not enforced. God punishes us the same way a parent punishes a child for being disobedient. But it is done out of love. He also gives us a way to erase the sin. It's called repentance. It is admitting that what you are doing is wrong and actively trying to change yourself to be better.

Christians usually try to explain this by saying that God yearns for a personal relationship with us. This is probably one of the most absurd things I've ever heard in my life. Growing up in a Christian home, I've heard a lot of whacko stuff, but this one really takes the cake. I'm supremely glad that I started thinking for myself before graduating.

Again, God is our Father, and like any parent, He wants to know us and what we are doing with ourselves. If you don't believe he is a Father, then yeah, the idea of an all-powerful god wanting a relationship with sinful mortals seems ********, if not a complete waste of thinking, But I know that my dad wants me to call him and keep up with him, and I believe that the same is true for our Heavenly Father.

Also, according to the Bible, sin entered the world through Adam and Eve sinning in the Garden. Why should the rest of humanity have to suffer from the bad decision of two people? That's utterly ridiculous. Why should I have to pay for the sins of Adam?

Here's where my religion tends to stray off the beaten path. Adam and Eve did have "original sin," but it really is Satan who is the cause of sinning on the earth, not Adam and Eve. Here's some food for thought: In Genesis the Lord commanded Adam and Eve to "be fruitful and multiply," meaning have children. But in the garden before eating the fruit, they didn't even realize they were naked, let alone able to reproduce. So they really had to leave the garden in order to multiply and replenish the earth. So they had to sin in order to keep a commandment. Yes, it's a paradox, and I can't fully explain it because I have already explained everything I understand, and yes, I believe it. So we do not have to pay for the sins of Adam. They are his sins, not ours. We have enough sins of our own to worry about

About Hell: why should truly good people who just have the misfortune of not knowing about Christ have to suffer in flames (for eternity, mind you) next to child molesters /abusers, rapists, murderers, dictators, etc.?

In my church we teach about being baptized for those who have passed on. We call them baptisms for the dead. We believe that we can be baptized for our dead ancestors who have not heard of Christ and that they can then choose whether or not to accept the baptism. It's hard to go deeper into this because it is controversial to other religions, but I do not believe that a fair and just God would punish people who never had the chance to hear, only those who reject it.

I know there is some new and maybe even weird doctrine in here, but these are my beliefs, they will never, ever change, only grow stronger. Sorry about the uber-long post, but I think it was worth saying.

 

[snex]

Let me preface with this: I am a devout believer in God and Christ. I was born into that faith, but that does not mean that it is blind. I have researched, and if I have learned anything, I have come to know for myself that there is a God and that He has a divine plan for all of humankind, His children. If you disagree, great. Really, that's great. But please don't say I'm dumb because I believe this. That would be like me saying that you're dumb because you believe in the Sun. It's just not worth arguing and in any case, is insulting to the believer. I've put some of Red Darkstar Kirby's questions out of order because I believe that the answers to some questions assist in the answers to others. Let's begin:

gee id love to see this research. in what journal was it published? what experiments did you perform and who has replicated them? more importantly, how can i replicate them myself?

I believe that every person who has lived, is living, or will live on this earth is a son or daughter of God, our Heavenly Father. Because he is the literal Father of our spirits, or souls, he wants to know us and have a relationship with us, like our earthly fathers do (at least, most of them.) God knows we will sin because He made the earth, and He knows that Satan has the power to lead us astray and tempt us. So He wants us to have a personal relationship with Him so we can try to sin less, and if anything, repent of the sins we do commit.

why did god create satan, again?

I'll be honest and maybe a little blunt. God is loving, but he is also just. When we break one of the laws of God, such as killing someone (check the 10 Commandments on that one) we need to be punished for it, because if there is a law and no consequence for it, it ceases to be a law because it is not enforced. God punishes us the same way a parent punishes a child for being disobedient. But it is done out of love. He also gives us a way to erase the sin. It's called repentance. It is admitting that what you are doing is wrong and actively trying to change yourself to be better.

this doesnt answer his question... unless you are telling us that innocent babies who die of genetic defects and natives who are killed by tsunamis are all murderers.

Again, God is our Father, and like any parent, He wants to know us and what we are doing with ourselves. If you don't believe he is a Father, then yeah, the idea of an all-powerful god wanting a relationship with sinful mortals seems ********, if not a complete waste of thinking, But I know that my dad wants me to call him and keep up with him, and I believe that the same is true for our Heavenly Father.

what would your earthly father do if you didnt call and keep u with him? would he punish you for all eternity? if my father even threatened such a thing, i would stop calling him immediately, and call the police instead because he would be a psychopath.

Here's where my religion tends to stray off the beaten path. Adam and Eve did have "original sin," but it really is Satan who is the cause of sinning on the earth, not Adam and Eve. Here's some food for thought: In Genesis the Lord commanded Adam and Eve to "be fruitful and multiply," meaning have children. But in the garden before eating the fruit, they didn't even realize they were naked, let alone able to reproduce. So they really had to leave the garden in order to multiply and replenish the earth. So they had to sin in order to keep a commandment. Yes, it's a paradox, and I can't fully explain it because I have already explained everything I understand, and yes, I believe it. So we do not have to pay for the sins of Adam. They are his sins, not ours. We have enough sins of our own to worry about

god didnt tell them to be fruitful and multiply until after the fall already happened.

and, why did god create satan again?

In my church we teach about being baptized for those who have passed on. We call them baptisms for the dead. We believe that we can be baptized for our dead ancestors who have not heard of Christ and that they can then choose whether or not to accept the baptism. It's hard to go deeper into this because it is controversial to other religions, but I do not believe that a fair and just God would punish people who never had the chance to hear, only those who reject it.

ah so youre a crazy mormon cultist then. what did joseph smith have to say about polygamy? how about black people?

I know there is some new and maybe even weird doctrine in here, but these are my beliefs, they will never, ever change, only grow stronger. Sorry about the uber-long post, but I think it was worth saying.

we have a phrase for that, its "intellectual dishonesty." people who value truth will always be open to changing their minds if the evidence shows them to be wrong. but you are just showing yourself to be an arrogant bigot who will repeat the same old lies over and over no matter how many times they get exposed.

 

[graceofbass]

Sorry snex, but if I were not a Mormon, would you still bash on me? To answer a few of your questions:

As to the scientific experiments: There are absolutely none. But you can replicate it. I've read scripture and prayed to know whether it's true or not, and I had a feeling that gave me no doubt as to whether it was true. Scientific? heck no. But it worked for me and it's worked for millions of others.

God didn't "create" Satan as Satan. I believe that Satan was a son of god like you and me, but he chose to rebel against God, and was punished accordingly. Satan has no physical body, and is jealous of ours, so he tempts us to make us as miserable as he is.

I compared innocent babies to murderers? When? Babies who die committed absolutely no crime, and I never stated that, so I'm not sure where that argument came from.

If I never called my dad, I think he'd be more sad than anything. And I also believe that God is perfect, unlike any mortal, so he's obviously not going to go and do anything crazy like an earthly dad can.

When I brought up my faith as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I knew that someone would bring up polygamy and any dirt on Joseph Smith they could find. I can't answer an attack on my faith like that.

And as for being "intellectually dishonest" and an "arrogant bigot," I don't think I ever forced my opinion on anyone, I merely stated them. If you felt I was forcing them on you, I sincerely apologize, I never meant it that way. As for what I believe being proven wrong, when the earth ends and I just stop existing, then I guess you win. But until then, I believe in it all.

As for proof, not even all scientists need proof. I cannot back this up because a friend of mine (who is respected on this website but will remain nameless b/c I don't want anyone to bother him) told me this story and I don't have a source, but I still thought it was an interesting though, even if it isn't Einstein:

When asked by a group of scientists if God exists, Albert Einstein replied by throwing a glass beaker against the wall, which shattered in many pieces. Einstein asked "Can those shards of glass fix themselves of their own accord without any outside influence?" To which the scientists replied, "Of course not, they are inanimate and unable to move themselves." Einstein stated,"So you mean to tell me, that all the pieces of the universe spontaneously created itself without any outside influence?"

 

[snex]

Sorry snex, but if I were not a Mormon, would you still bash on me? To answer a few of your questions:

yes. anybody who holds stupid beliefs with no evidence should be ridiculed until they stop behaving like children.

As to the scientific experiments: There are absolutely none. But you can replicate it. I've read scripture and prayed to know whether it's true or not, and I had a feeling that gave me no doubt as to whether it was true. Scientific? heck no. But it worked for me and it's worked for millions of others.

if you performed no science, then your claims are worthless. come back when you have evidence. this is a debate, not a pulpit.

God didn't "create" Satan as Satan. I believe that Satan was a son of god like you and me, but he chose to rebel against God, and was punished accordingly. Satan has no physical body, and is jealous of ours, so he tempts us to make us as miserable as he is.

why doesnt god just fix satan? why doesnt he just destroy satan? why doesnt he stop satan from tempting us? there are millions of things god could do to neutralize satan's ability to do anything to us, yet he refuses to do any of them. god is therefore just as evil as satan is.

I compared innocent babies to murderers? When? Babies who die committed absolutely no crime, and I never stated that, so I'm not sure where that argument came from.

red darkstar kirby asked why there is so much suffering in the world, and you replied that god punishes people who sin. so why do innocent babies suffer?

If I never called my dad, I think he'd be more sad than anything. And I also believe that God is perfect, unlike any mortal, so he's obviously not going to go and do anything crazy like an earthly dad can.

and yet you think he will throw you into hell for all eternity if you reject him! thats as crazy as it gets!

When I brought up my faith as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I knew that someone would bring up polygamy and any dirt on Joseph Smith they could find. I can't answer an attack on my faith like that.

its not just an "attack," its a critical issue. you believe joseph smith was a prophet of god, not just some guy who wrote a book. you believe that any revelations given to smith are the word of god himself. so, what revelations did joseph smith have about polygamy and black people? and why does the modern mormon church ignore those revelations? seems to me that theyre denying god's own word as given to joseph smith.

As for proof, not even all scientists need proof. I cannot back this up because a friend of mine (who is respected on this website but will remain nameless b/c I don't want anyone to bother him) told me this story and I don't have a source, but I still thought it was an interesting though, even if it isn't Einstein:

When asked by a group of scientists if God exists, Albert Einstein replied by throwing a glass beaker against the wall, which shattered in many pieces. Einstein asked "Can those shards of glass fix themselves of their own accord without any outside influence?" To which the scientists replied, "Of course not, they are inanimate and unable to move themselves." Einstein stated,"So you mean to tell me, that all the pieces of the universe spontaneously created itself without any outside influence?"

that story is a complete fabrication and you should demand to know why your friend lied to you. no scientist, especially einstein who didnt even believe in god, is dumb enough to make such a poor argument. scientists use SCIENCE, and SCIENCE has failed to find any indication of any gods anywhere.

 

[snex]

removing double post.

 

[snex]

wow, triple post. fix your server smashboards.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Let me preface with this: I am a devout believer in God and Christ. I was born into that faith, but that does not mean that it is blind. I have researched, and if I have learned anything, I have come to know for myself that there is a God and that He has a divine plan for all of humankind, His children. If you disagree, great. Really, that's great. But please don't say I'm dumb because I believe this. That would be like me saying that you're dumb because you believe in the Sun. It's just not worth arguing and in any case, is insulting to the believer. I've put some of Red Darkstar Kirby's questions out of order because I believe that the answers to some questions assist in the answers to others. Let's begin:

I would like to begin by saying that you are dumb. I'm not calling you dumb for your beliefs, but because you told me not to call you dumb and I found that to be a personal challenge against your authority. Well I accept. You are dumb. And if you want to call me dumb for believing in the sun, then let me state that I've at least seen the sun. So there.

I believe that every person who has lived, is living, or will live on this earth is a son or daughter of God, our Heavenly Father. Because he is the literal Father of our spirits, or souls, he wants to know us and have a relationship with us, like our earthly fathers do (at least, most of them.) God knows we will sin because He made the earth, and He knows that Satan has the power to lead us astray and tempt us. So He wants us to have a personal relationship with Him so we can try to sin less, and if anything, repent of the sins we do commit.

There are a couple of things I want to content here.

The first is that you say that a god figure is the creator of my soul (what I would refer to as life force). Yet there is no proof of this god figure. The fact that all living things have a life force (as determined by science called a bioelectric field) disproves the bible in that it states that only humans have souls. If you change the soul to be mind, then I can show plenty of mammals that show self-consciousness and will. Dolphins and apes are intelligent and aware of their surroundings and understand consequence.

The second is how you blame Beelz for evil. God created evil and commanded Beelz to test man. You cannot blame light bringer for doing what he was commanded to by god.

I'll be honest and maybe a little blunt. God is loving, but he is also just. When we break one of the laws of God, such as killing someone (check the 10 Commandments on that one) we need to be punished for it, because if there is a law and no consequence for it, it ceases to be a law because it is not enforced. God punishes us the same way a parent punishes a child for being disobedient. But it is done out of love. He also gives us a way to erase the sin. It's called repentance. It is admitting that what you are doing is wrong and actively trying to change yourself to be better.

I break the commandments regularly. I work on weekends, I fail to honor my mother and father at times, I ignore your god and respect graven images, etc. I haven't been struck down by lightning yet. But children born with debilitating illness that allows them to live for the shortest time in incredible pain before dying deserve it? I fail to see how a just god would first punish an innocent then send them to your metaphysical hell as a being that was unable to repent. Your god seems extraordinarily unjust.

Here's where my religion tends to stray off the beaten path. Adam and Eve did have "original sin," but it really is Satan who is the cause of sinning on the earth, not Adam and Eve. Here's some food for thought: In Genesis the Lord commanded Adam and Eve to "be fruitful and multiply," meaning have children. But in the garden before eating the fruit, they didn't even realize they were naked, let alone able to reproduce. So they really had to leave the garden in order to multiply and replenish the earth. So they had to sin in order to keep a commandment. Yes, it's a paradox, and I can't fully explain it because I have already explained everything I understand, and yes, I believe it. So we do not have to pay for the sins of Adam. They are his sins, not ours. We have enough sins of our own to worry about

Then your god already knew the outcome before he started. You cannot condemn a creature when you set it up to do a specific action. God made Adam sin, it is god's sin, not Adam's.

In my church we teach about being baptized for those who have passed on. We call them baptisms for the dead. We believe that we can be baptized for our dead ancestors who have not heard of Christ and that they can then choose whether or not to accept the baptism. It's hard to go deeper into this because it is controversial to other religions, but I do not believe that a fair and just God would punish people who never had the chance to hear, only those who reject it.

Ahhh, you're a Mormon. Heh. You still have the problem of all the trillions of people who are in hell for no reason other than never hearing of your god. Or of all the good people who have heard but had been given absolutely no evidence to believe and will burn in hellfire for it.

I know there is some new and maybe even weird doctrine in here, but these are my beliefs, they will never, ever change, only grow stronger. Sorry about the uber-long post, but I think it was worth saying.

But you see that this is where we differ. I believe what I do now given the information I have. And this is different than what I believed yesterday because I've learned things between then and now. To take an absolute stance on an issue, any issue, regardless of evidence is the definition of obstinance. But that has no place in an ever changing world where the ability to adapt allows survival. This world isn't for those who can't evolve, and if you don't then you will die. I have no problem with that if not for the fact that you will probably take many of my fellow man with you. And I find that to be a good definition of evil.

 

[Falco&Victory]

stfu >_>

that was to RDK, we're tight holms. I would never to tell a mod to stfu o.O

you wont because it never happened. he is probably referring to the miller-urey experiment which demonstrated that amino acids can be formed from simple materials that would have existed on the primitive and lifeless earth.

No, it was in my bio book last semester, I'll find the guys name and google it again. I just have to drop by my old science teacher and see if he's there(the book was in german >_> But i'll find it)

 

[snex]

No, it was in my bio book last semester, I'll find the guys name and google it again. I just have to drop by my old science teacher and see if he's there(the book was in german >_> But i'll find it)

wanna bet on this? science has not yet created life from non-life.

 

[Falco&Victory]

no, but over a period of time in a controlled environment nature has...

I must have explained it wrong, the most common gases to life were sealed off into a container and shocked with electricity that one would expect to find in an atmospheric environment until very simple forms of life began to form(i think it was fungus or something)

 

[AltF4]

Welcome to the debate hall, GraceOfBass. (Bass aren't well know for their grace though...)

I just want to interject some quick things into the conversation:

- Einstein was a funny fellow. He went through several phases of religious belief. He was Jewish, but didn't particularly identify with being Jewish. He believed in a steady state universe so fervently (because of his religious beliefs) that he wasted the last 30 years of his life trying to prove it. (And failed) Then he renounced the judeo-christian god on his death bed. (Not literally, but really late in his life.)

- Snex and Gamer can be kind of abrasive, but there's good arguments mixed in with the sarcasm and insults.

- The only thing that struck me as terrible in your entire posting was when you said your beliefs will never change. Never? How else can I classify that other than as ignorance? You're saying that even if god himself appeared to the world, came down on a cloud, and told the world that the Muslims are right, you still wouldn't change your beliefs. You're saying that even if it were mathematically proven that there was no god at all, and millions of people across the world are giving up religion because it was proven to be in vain, you still wouldn't care. That is ignorance.

 

[snex]

Einstein was a funny fellow. He went through several phases of religious belief. He was Jewish, but didn't particularly identify with being Jewish. He believed in a steady state universe so fervently (because of his religious beliefs) that he wasted the last 30 years of his life trying to prove it. (And failed) Then he renounced the judeo-christian god on his death bed. (Not literally, but really late in his life.)

where DO you people get this idiocy? einstein did NOT believe in god! he was a pantheist, meaning he believed that the universe itself was divine.

 

[AltF4]

That's not entirely accurate. One of his famous quotes is "God does not play dice". By that he meant that he did not believe that god would make a world as odd (and controlled by random forces) as quantum mechanics described. Of course he was wrong, but that's what he thought.

Einstein rejected quantum mechanics and an expanding universe on the basis of religious belief. (At one point in his life. Later he would do a 180 on that.)

 

[snex]

no, that is not what he meant. he used the word "god" to refer to the divinity of the universe, as most pantheists do. "god" to a pantheist is the simple and elegant working of the universe based on mathematical laws. einstein believed is that, which is why he asserted it did not play dice. playing dice indicates randomness, rather than simple elegance based on laws. einstein never believed in a god that "made" anything, because his god had no personality, no free will, no consciousness, etc.

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

can we please stop lying about the man?

 

[AltF4]

Einstein's such a liar. And a ****. Little known fact about Einstein: He was a total ****, tru fax. But seriously, if that's what he was trying to say, then so be it. I'll concede the point.

What were we talking about before this?

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Wikipedia agrees with snex. Einstein was not religious.