Do You Believe in God?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
362

[quote]rainjack wrote:
I hate these threads as much as pookie gets a little canadian stiffy over them.

It boils down to faith. Faith - by it’s very nature is horribly illogical.

How in the world does one enter a logical discussion about an illogical act?

Pookie loves to get the goat of people that think they can logically explain why they believe what they believe. Just face it - there is no scientific basis by which one can prove anything in the Bible, or anything about their faith.

You either believe, or you don’t.

Does God exist? I believe he does.

Did He send Jesus Christ down to earth to live a sinless life and die for our sins, and rise again on the 3rd day? I believe He did.

Did the Holy Spirit come down to live in those that take Jesus Christ as their personal savior? I believe He did.

Do I give a shit about changing someone’s mind? Not at all. I don’t have that power. I don’t think anyone has that power - that negates the power of faith.

So let EE, pookie, and the rest take potshots. I’m not even in their ballpark.I am not about to discuss the whys and wherefores of my faith. I don’t hold it against them that they think I am a fool - but I don’t cast my pearls before swine, either.

[/quote]

Yet, here you are, on page 14 of a thread you don’t care about, repeating to us again how secure you are in your beliefs.

Who are you trying to convince?

363

[quote]ZEB wrote:
electric_eales wrote:
Hey I reckon there was a carpenter called Jesus that lived in the middle east 2000 years ago, I believe he had a bunch of buddies that were all extremely talented story tellers, I also believe that these people got togehter and wrote the majotity of what is the bible.

Where is the logic?

If they were making up stories then how come they purposely died for these stories when they could have recanted and lived?

How many times in the past have we ever seen large groups of people die purposely for a lie?

Think about it.

[/quote]

A few hundred million in the 20th century alone?

364

[quote]austin_bicep wrote:
orion wrote:
austin_bicep wrote:
Eales, you’re probably the most immature adult i’ve ever encountered on T-Nation throwing personal attacks that you wouldn’t have said to my face in fear of getting your ass beat. If you want to continue this ridiculus name calling do it over a PM and spare these people from your retardedness. Most of your and Will to Powers points are based on faith believeing some of the stuff you have said. I beleive what I believe you believe what you believe you’re the minority in this case.

Ah, appeal to majority.

Argumentum ad populum.

Must you use every fallacy there is? Is there a bet involved?

No there is no bet involved. As I said I believe what I believe and you can believe what you believe I haven’t seen any substantial proof in scientific realm and nobody can sway my beliefs.
[/quote]

And you will never get scientific proof, since it is impossible to proof that something does not exist.

Which is why the burden of proof is on the one claiming the existence of something/someone.

365

[quote]will to power wrote:
By the way, none of the stuff atheists do believe puts us in the minority. The majority just believe in things we do not.[/quote]

If you want to go by majorities, even the Catholics, who claim 2 billion adherents, don’t form a global majority. 4.5 billion people aren’t Catholic. For any faith in any form, there are more people who don’t believe in that particular faith than those who do.

So atheists, in fact, are part of the vast majority who don’t believe in your faith, whichever it may be.

366

[quote]orion wrote:
ZEB wrote:
electric_eales wrote:
Hey I reckon there was a carpenter called Jesus that lived in the middle east 2000 years ago, I believe he had a bunch of buddies that were all extremely talented story tellers, I also believe that these people got togehter and wrote the majotity of what is the bible.

Where is the logic?

If they were making up stories then how come they purposely died for these stories when they could have recanted and lived?

How many times in the past have we ever seen large groups of people die purposely for a lie?

Think about it.

A few hundred million in the 20th century alone?[/quote]

going to need some names please

367

[quote]will to power wrote:
Taken antibiotics?[/quote]

The question is: When he gets antibiotics, does he ask for the original ones, or the newer ones, developed to fight the diseases that have evolved resistances to the original antibiotics?

368

[quote]pookie wrote:
Yet, here you are, on page 14 of a thread you don’t care about, repeating to us again how secure you are in your beliefs.

Who are you trying to convince?
[/quote]

No one. No one at all. Why did you waste your time? THink you can evoke a pissing contest out of me?

Pearls before swine, porky.

369

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
orion wrote:

Must you use every fallacy there is? Is there a bet involved?

Yeah, let’s count 'em up:

Argumentum ad populum
…ad hominem
…ad absurdum
…ad infinitum
…ad nauseam

The boy could open his own ad agency.[/quote]

You missed “highly ad musing.”

370

[quote]rainjack wrote:
pookie wrote:
Yet, here you are, on page 14 of a thread you don’t care about, repeating to us again how secure you are in your beliefs.

Who are you trying to convince?

No one. No one at all. Why did you waste your time? THink you can evoke a pissing contest out of me?

Pearls before swine, porky. [/quote]

Ever notice how many genital references you make in almost every post? Scrotums, stiffies, piss…

Why are men’s crotches on your mind so often?

371

[quote]pookie wrote:
rainjack wrote:
pookie wrote:
Yet, here you are, on page 14 of a thread you don’t care about, repeating to us again how secure you are in your beliefs.

Who are you trying to convince?

No one. No one at all. Why did you waste your time? THink you can evoke a pissing contest out of me?

Pearls before swine, porky.

Ever notice how many genital references you make in almost every post? Scrotums, stiffies, piss…

Why are men’s crotches on your mind so often?

[/quote]

Since when is pissing considered a male genital reference? If I am not mistaken, females piss as well.

As an addendum to my previous post - If my public education has served me well, I think the title of this thread is titled “Do You Believe In God?”. I stated what I believe and explained what I think is the folly in debates such as this.

Why does my posting require your less than stellar commentary?

Who are you trying to convince?

372

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Since when is pissing considered a male genital reference? If I am not mistaken, females piss as well.[/quote]

You evoked a pissing contest between us.

I’m interested by your persistence in these debates you consider “folly.”

The faithful mind works in odd ways. Not yours, mind you, yours apparently doesn’t work at all, except as an echo chamber for right wing radio.

I’m trying to get your mind off your male-crotch obsession.

373

[quote]pookie wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Since when is pissing considered a male genital reference? If I am not mistaken, females piss as well.

You evoked a pissing contest between us.

As an addendum to my previous post - If my public education has served me well, I think the title of this thread is titled “Do You Believe In God?”. I stated what I believe and explained what I think is the folly in debates such as this.

I’m interested by your persistence in these debates you consider “folly.”

The faithful mind works in odd ways. Not yours, mind you, yours apparently doesn’t work at all, except as an echo chamber for right wing radio.

Why does my posting require your less than stellar commentary?

I’m trying to get your mind off your male-crotch obsession.
[/quote]

Good luck with that.

374

Pookie wrote:

Ok but none of that addresses a disagreement over orthodoxy. IE the Apostles creed. Which one of these type of sects. RCC\EOC\Protestant don�??t agree on that?

  1. Augustine didn�??t write any part of the Bible.
  2. The Bible isn�??t a science book.
  3. You missed my point that Christians have not held to a literal interpretation of Genesis at all times. Therefore an argument for literal interpretation in this instance is unwarranted. If Augustine who had no evolutionary arguments to contend with saw no need for a literal interpretation than why was the other poster making an issue of it.

You seem to keep mis-understanding what I am saying.
Catholics and protestants look at this issue and describe it differently, but they still agree in the end.

All roads to Heaven lead through faith in Christ.

The difference is Catholics things that you must show your faith with works.
A protestant thinks that true faith brings about works.

In the end both think you have to have works, but the sole condition for salvation is Christ.

So�?��?� No I am not wrong. Perhaps you should look into this book

I will say this again. If we are defining orthodoxy it would line up with the apostles creed.

Which one of those three are in disagreement over this.

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, God’s only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to the dead.*
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.

375

[quote]haney1 wrote:
Which one of those three are in disagreement over this.

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, God’s only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to the dead.*
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.

[/quote]

Given that this was written specifically to sort Unitarians from Trinitarians, it does have a contentious ring to it…

376

It is very easy for me to explain why I do not believ in god, what I have found with nearly all believers is that they cannot or will not explain why they DO believe in a god, I honestly think that some people do not really know why it is they believe, and other are scared to truely delve into the reasons as to why they believe as this may cause them to doubt their beliefs, which again is back to the whole faith being sticking your fingers in your ears and singing lalalalalalal as loud as possible.

377

[quote]TQB wrote:
haney1 wrote:
Which one of those three are in disagreement over this.

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, God’s only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to the dead.*
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.

Given that this was written specifically to sort Unitarians from Trinitarians, it does have a contentious ring to it…

[/quote]

Didn’t know this specific conflict arose as early as Irenaeus second century. when we find the following

(3) Though no uniform type of Creed can be surely recognized among the earlier Eastern writers before the Council of Nicaea, an argument which has been considered by many to disprove the existence of any Apostolic formula, it is a striking fact that the Eastern Churches in the fourth century are found in possession of a Creed which reproduces with variations the old Roman type. This fact is full admitted by such Protestant authorities as Harnack (in Hauck’s Realencyclopädie, I, 747) and Kattenbusch (I, 380 sq.; II, 194 sqq., and 737 sq.). It is obvious that these data would harmonize very well with the theory that a primitive Creed had been delivered to the Christian community of Rome, either by Sts. Peter and Paul themselves or by their immediate successors, and in the course of time had spread throughout the world.

(4) Furthermore note that towards the end of the second century we can extract from the writings of St. Irenæus in southern Gaul and of Tertullian in far-off Africa two almost complete Creeds (Transc. Note: hyperlink to Acreed2.gif) agreeing closely both with the old Roman Creed (R), as we know it from Rufinus, and with one another. It will be useful to translate from Burn (Introduction to the Creeds, pp. 50, 51) his tabular presentation of the evidence in the case of Tertullian. (Cf. MacDonald in “Ecclesiastical Review”, February, 1903):

378

[quote]electric_eales wrote:
It is very easy for me to explain why I do not believ in god, what I have found with nearly all believers is that they cannot or will not explain why they DO believe in a god, I honestly think that some people do not really know why it is they believe, and other are scared to truely delve into the reasons as to why they believe as this may cause them to doubt their beliefs, which again is back to the whole faith being sticking your fingers in your ears and singing lalalalalalal as loud as possible.

[/quote]

I will answer but this is not up for debate. IE I won’t defend my reasons due to time, and if you are really interested you can use the search function and find my previous posts.

with that you want an explination you have it.
I believe because the evidence that I look at points to it. I see the gospels as credible witnesses to what happened. I see the life surrounding the Apostles after Christ ressurection as more proof that they truly believed Christ appeared and rose from the dead. I see all religions have truth in them, but all lack something when compared to Christianity.

I will state for the record Christians would do better in this world if they actually took the message of God to heart, and practiced that they should be dfferent from the world. (ie. love even their enemies).

I think the Christian church is in a dismal state and that you have accuratly pointed out that most people don’t know what they believe or why they believe it. I am not interested in dogma or tradition. I am interested in truth. So when this thread dies and everyone moves on I will still be looking for it. why? because even though I think I am correct about Christ, I know there is still a possiblity that I am wrong. That is where the faith comes in I believe I am right because of things I have seen and studied. If something piece of evidence shatters my evidence than I will change my pov. Why? because truth is what Christ and the apostles claimed. If it isn’t true then I have no reason to believe it anymore.

You see someone like me and pookie look at the same coin and one says that is enough for me, and the other says no I need more.

same evidence different conclusions.

If someone can cast enough doubt to my conclusion I will change my POV

379

Thanks for the post Haney, I appreciate you posting that, its very interesting and I have many thoughts about it, but I will pay you the respect you deserve by not questioning or debating your reasons for believing in god

380

[quote]haney1 wrote:
TQB wrote:

Given that this was written specifically to sort Unitarians from Trinitarians, it does have a contentious ring to it…

Didn’t know this specific conflict arose as early as Irenaeus second century. when we find the following

(3) Though no uniform type of Creed can be surely recognized among the earlier Eastern writers before the Council of Nicaea, an argument which has been considered by many to disprove the existence of any Apostolic formula, it is a striking fact that the Eastern Churches in the fourth century are found in possession of a Creed which reproduces with variations the old Roman type. This fact is full admitted by such Protestant authorities as Harnack (in Hauck’s Realencyclopädie, I, 747) and Kattenbusch (I, 380 sq.; II, 194 sqq., and 737 sq.). It is obvious that these data would harmonize very well with the theory that a primitive Creed had been delivered to the Christian community of Rome, either by Sts. Peter and Paul themselves or by their immediate successors, and in the course of time had spread throughout the world.

(4) Furthermore note that towards the end of the second century we can extract from the writings of St. Irenæus in southern Gaul and of Tertullian in far-off Africa two almost complete Creeds (Transc. Note: hyperlink to Acreed2.gif) agreeing closely both with the old Roman Creed (R), as we know it from Rufinus, and with one another. It will be useful to translate from Burn (Introduction to the Creeds, pp. 50, 51) his tabular presentation of the evidence in the case of Tertullian. (Cf. MacDonald in “Ecclesiastical Review”, February, 1903):

[/quote]

Can’t speak for Ireneaus, but Tertullian was a known Unitarian-basher until he went off the straight and narrow and became a heretic himself.

381

[quote]austin_bicep wrote:
My question is for those non beleivers, wouldn’t it be better to believe? what’s to lose, when there is a whole lot to gain.
[/quote]

Pookie nailed this.

Have you ever read ANYTHING about evolution? From what you’ve written here, I seriously doubt it. If you look this up, you’d find this is a fascinating explanation of how we arrived where we are today. When species evolve, they adapt to new conditions and environments to compete with the same or other species. All things weren’t laid out at the same time, some species have been around longer than others, and new species are showing up and we all have to compete to survive (survival of the fittest).

If you keep doing something over and over, after the 10000th time you are bound to make a mistake, you’re human after all. Part of how different species developed was “mistakes”. This is when DNA doesn’t replicate correctly, and also how genes are passed down and when, for example, when someone is born with diablities, it’s not god punishing the parents, it’s errors on a genetic level.

Some species do not look after their eggs at all. Who created god? Don’t give me that “he’s always been, always will be”. I could say the same thing about the planet and our universe.

We didn’t evolve out of apes. We may have resembled them at some stage, 1000’s of years ago (fossils suggest this), but it doesn’t mean apes will look like us in 100 000 years. They are at different evolutionary stages, and not the same species, yet they are able to survive easily in our current world.

[quote]
If you weren’t so ignorant you may have realized some of these common sense ideas. I’m not giving complicated answers just common sense. If you can prove these claims I made to be false the I will deny God, but you can’t and that’s how I know God exists.[/quote]

I think you’ll find you are the ignorant one. I used to be religious, I questioned it and gained some knowledge on the subject and now I have sided with a smarter explanation.