Does God Exist?

[PuppyChow]

I'm quite sure you're American.

Are you racist against Americans, or something? XD. Just because I'm American doesn't mean there's a lot of fundamentalists where I live. In my area, I know NOBODY who is a fundamentalist.

People don't kill eachother over documentaries.

In an ideal world, people don't kill each other over religions either.

Zeitgeist doesn't determine the way I live,doesn't set my goals in life, doesn't determine my morals and doesn't give me a free excuse to go around judging people. Your idea of a 'relgigion' is way off, I'm afraid.

relgigion. lol.

Anyway, where do you get the idea that Christians "judge" people? Sure, some do, but that's just a stereotype that isn't supposed to be true. Does it set my goals in life? In a way, yes. But ideally, your goal should be to help the needy and live a good life anyway. Does it determine my morals? I guess. Sure, I don't murder people, but I probably wouldn't do that anyway. (But yes, there are certain (good) morals that I follow in the Bible).

Religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Zeitgeist belief: Jesus didn't exist (can't be proven)
Zeitgeist purpose of universe: To live this life then nothing
As creation... No, but well, that's "especially" so doesn't have to be true.
Usually involving devotionals... "Usually"
Often containing a moral code... "Often"

Zeitgeist could be a religion. A very very unorthodox one, but hey, whatever.

Yeah. No. The pun used in that movie doesn't stop Jesus from having a lot in common with religions of sun worship.

Yes it does. If Jesus isn't symbolic of the sun, then how can you make any more links? If the two basic things of the religions, Jesus and the sun, aren't equal, then how can you think the 12 disciples are symbolic of the zodiac?

Yet the other parts do not disprove it.What was that about not being able to make a case out of circumstantial evidence again?

Am I making a case out of circumstantial evidence? I'm just saying that even if there are limited similarities, the vast majority is different. It's like saying that because x=y, then (ax*j+c-p)/u = cd+f-q/(z-ey).

1. The writers of the Bible are completely unknown. The only thing you could use to conclude who they were, is the Bible itself. Doesn't work that way.

Given the context of the time period and the time of the original documents that make up the Bible, biblical scholars (historians of a kind) can indeed decipher the likely authors. They don't just use the Bible, they use history and archeology among other categories as well.

http://www.gotquestions.org/bible-authors.html

The agreed authors ^.

2. Jesus main actions being 'foretold' is an absolute rubbish idea as well. If I write a novel in which something similar is 'foretold' in the first few pages, and it happens in the last, does this make my novel a work of prophecy to be worshipped?

No, what makes God worth worshiping is that he sent his son Jesus to die on the cross for our sins and that he is just and merciful. Not that it was foretold.

That allegory doesn't work anyway, since the Biblical authors were different from different time periods. Definitely not the same author.

And yet Egyptian religion has a lot of similar stories.

And yet Horus, which is the specific god Zeitgeist mentions, doesn't. The film creator lied.

When you look at Egyptian religion as a whole, it really has no parallels with the Bible. Goes back to that whole x=y, then (ax*j+c-p)/u = cd+f-q/(z-ey) thing. Just a few obscure similarities doesn't make an argument.

Krishna; tested by the 'demon'. The coming of his kingdom was foretold by the stars, and people looked unto him to bring salvation.

Jesus' kingdom was foretold by God, not the stars. Can you cite the rest of it? Since I can't find him being tested by the demon. I can find him saving some maidens from a demon, but not being tested in the way Jesus was by one. People looked unto him to bring salvation? Can't find that either; they saw him as a great hero and later worshiped him along with the other gods, but not as God's son come to earth to save humans from their sins.

You're trying to say that Jesus did not perform miracles now?

No, I'm saying that EVERY God performs miracles, so that being a similarity doesn't really work.

[acelink]

I'm quite sure you're American.

Are you racist against Americans, or something? XD. Just because I'm American doesn't mean there's a lot of fundamentalists where I live. In my area, I know NOBODY who is a fundamentalist.

Americans are known for being ignorant, stupid and ethnocentric.  I happen to agree with that statement along the most of the world.  (I am also American)

People don't kill each other over documentaries.

In an ideal world, people don't kill each other over religions either.

Your statement is rather alarming.  Are you trying to say a documentary is going to start a major conflict and lead to a massive amount of death?  (not just one or two people) Religion has started wars and will start more wars. 

relgigion. lol.
Zeitgeist belief: Jesus didn't exist (can't be proven)
Zeitgeist purpose of universe: To live this life then nothing
As creation... No, but well, that's "especially" so doesn't have to be true.
Usually involving devotionals... "Usually"
Often containing a moral code... "Often"

Zeitgeist could be a religion. A very very unorthodox one, but hey, whatever.

You are taking the definition of religion too far.  Zeitgeist, I'm only talking about the first part, questions religion.  No where does it ever state the purpose of the universe or try to explain anything else. 

It is just a documentary.  Can a religion be started from it? Yes.  Religions have started from movies and even songs...  They are known as CULTS.  Please don't start turning into a stupid American.

Yeah. No. The pun used in that movie doesn't stop Jesus from having a lot in common with religions of sun worship.

Yes it does. If Jesus isn't symbolic of the sun, then how can you make any more links? If the two basic things of the religions, Jesus and the sun, aren't equal, then how can you think the 12 disciples are symbolic of the zodiac?

You are bad at making connections. 
There is a pun in the movie between sun/son-- it is just a mere coincidence.  You are taking the literal sun/son meaning and nothing else.  You cannot take away the symbolic meaning of Jesus because it is a pun in the English language.  Jesus is representative of sun people praise.  Worship the sun and good things will happen.  Worship God/Jesus and good things shall happen. (Can you see the relationship yet?)

& btw... the disciples are not what is important in that relationship.  The number of disciples is.  12 disciples 12 zodiac signs.


I don't care for the rest of either of your guys' arguments.  Puppy will never find any links between Christianity and other religions--he is only looking for a verbatim link between religions and there is not one.  The problem with looking for "direct" links like that it will get you no where.  (In astronomy, we know other stars distances.  How?  I mean we are not able to go out there and measure them or anything... so how do we tell?  We find a relationship. (Luminosity/Magnitude)... although they are not inter-changeable or 'verbatim' directly connected.  There is still a relationship there that tells us a lot.)  Making connections in text is a little harder to explain.

We really are offtopic here.

[Demagog]

(In astronomy, we know other stars distances.  How?  I mean we are not able to go out there and measure them or anything... so how do we tell?  We find a relationship. (Luminosity/Magnitude)...

Perhaps they use that, but parallax is the most accurate. It's basically trig.

[acelink]

(In astronomy, we know other stars distances.  How?  I mean we are not able to go out there and measure them or anything... so how do we tell?  We find a relationship. (Luminosity/Magnitude)...

Perhaps they use that, but parallax is the most accurate. It's basically trig.

It depends on the use.  A rough parallax estimate requires equipment accurate to the hundredth of a degree (or so) and you have to wait half a year.  Your hobbyist astronomer would not bother with that.  NASA and other space agencies would.

But anyways, parallax still uses relationships.  Trig is all about finding relationships in objects.  And little of it is direct relationships (a=b type ordeal).

[PuppyChow]

Americans are known for being ignorant, stupid and ethnocentric.  I happen to agree with that statement along the most of the world.  (I am also American)

I disagree with that statement. PEOPLE are ignorant, stupid, or ethnocentric, not races.

Your statement is rather alarming.  Are you trying to say a documentary is going to start a major conflict and lead to a massive amount of death?  (not just one or two people) Religion has started wars and will start more wars. 

No. Read it again. Documentaries won't cause massive killings, and religion (at least Christianity) wouldn't in an ideal world without human mistakes.

You are taking the definition of religion too far.  Zeitgeist, I'm only talking about the first part, questions religion.  No where does it ever state the purpose of the universe or try to explain anything else. 

It is just a documentary.  Can a religion be started from it? Yes.  Religions have started from movies and even songs...  They are known as CULTS.  Please don't start turning into a stupid American.

It IS a stretch, but it COULD be a religion that has the belief that Jesus didn't exist.

As a documentary, I'm not sure. Most documentaries don't include straight up lies . A sensationalist movie, perhaps.

Please stop being racist, especially against yourself... >_<.

You are bad at making connections. 

That comment could have done without. Was it really necessary? I don't mind you responding to my posts, but try to keep from actually saying something about my knowledge or personality.

There is a pun in the movie between sun/son-- it is just a mere coincidence.  You are taking the literal sun/son meaning and nothing else.  You cannot take away the symbolic meaning of Jesus because it is a pun in the English language.  Jesus is representative of sun people praise.

Jesus is representative of sun people praise? lolwut? He's God's son. Not sun people praise.

Worship the sun and good things will happen.  Worship God/Jesus and good things shall happen. (Can you see the relationship yet?)

That's much to vague of a comparison. It's like saying "No Country for Old Men" is a movie. "Finding Nemo" is a movie. Do they have any more similarities? ...

& btw... the disciples are not what is important in that relationship.  The number of disciples is.  12 disciples 12 zodiac signs.

I have 5 red marbles. Somebody else has 5 apples. ZOMG RELATIONSHIP! IRREFUTABLE PROOF! THE APPLES WERE BASED ON THE MARBLES!

Sorry, there has to be more of a relationship than the numbers.

[acelink]

Americans are known for being ignorant, stupid and ethnocentric.  I happen to agree with that statement along the most of the world.  (I am also American)

I disagree with that statement. PEOPLE are ignorant, stupid, or ethnocentric, not races.

It is a stereotype about America.  I am not being racist and it is not an over-generalization.  You disagree, k. 

Your statement is rather alarming.  Are you trying to say a documentary is going to start a major conflict and lead to a massive amount of death?  (not just one or two people) Religion has started wars and will start more wars. 

No. Read it again. Documentaries won't cause massive killings, and religion (at least Christianity) wouldn't in an ideal world without human mistakes.

I am not talking about the ideal world.  I'm talking real world, not the world of theory and possibility.

You are taking the definition of religion too far.  Zeitgeist, I'm only talking about the first part, questions religion.  No where does it ever state the purpose of the universe or try to explain anything else. 

It is just a documentary.  Can a religion be started from it? Yes.  Religions have started from movies and even songs...  They are known as CULTS.  Please don't start turning into a stupid American.

It IS a stretch, but it COULD be a religion that has the belief that Jesus didn't exist.

As a documentary, I'm not sure. Most documentaries don't include straight up lies . A sensationalist movie, perhaps.

It is a huge stretch.  The documentary containx obscured facts but you talk as if it is all lies and ABSOLUTELY nothing in it is a fact.

You are bad at making connections. 

That comment could have done without. Was it really necessary? I don't mind you responding to my posts, but try to keep from actually saying something about my knowledge or personality.

I'm not going to beat around the bush.  It was not degrading or bashing you.  It says nothing about your knowledge, intellect or personality. It states something you can improve on.

What I'm saying with all of that is:  If you were to read George Orwells Animal Farm you would say it is book about animals running themselves and nothing more.  Although Animal Farm does have animals governing themselves-- the book is not about that.  It is symbolic representation of the Russian Revolution.

I pointed out simple comparisons.  You shot them down because you don't see a direct 'text' relationship.  There are no direct verbatim text relationships in religion, yes you are right.  But because that does not mean there is no relationship between the two. Life rarely give you direct verbatim relationship.

There are religions soley based upon worshiping the sun.  In time, the sun became personified.  Jesus came to represent the sun personified and worshiped.

[PuppyChow]

I am not talking about the ideal world.  I'm talking real world, not the world of theory and possibility.

Religion has caused wars, but it shouldn't have, since it is strictly against killing. If you tell someone to not do something and they go and do that something, who's fault is it?

It is a huge stretch.  The documentary contain obscured facts but you talk as if it is all lies and ABSOLUTELY nothing in it is a fact.

It very well could have some truth to it, but how could we know since we KNOW some (a lot) of it isn't true? There's a reason English teachers don't let students use wikipedia as a source: who knows if it's true or not?

What I'm saying with all of that is:  If you were to read George Orwells Animal Farm you would say it is book about animals running themselves and nothing more.  Although Animal Farm is does have animals governing themselves the book is not about that.  It is symbolic representation of the Russian Revolution.

No, I wouldn't. You don't know me. I would realize that it's an allegory for the Russian Revolution and treat it like that. Same with Lord of the Flies' thesis that humankind is inherently evil.

I pointed out simple comparisons.  You shot them down because you don't see a direct 'text' relationship.  There are no direct verbatim text relationships in religion, yes you are right.  But because that does not mean there is no relationship between the two. Life rarely give you direct verbatim relationship.

I shot down your simple comparisons because of just that: they're too simple. Life isn't simple. Religions aren't simple. You don't compare apples to oranges just because you have 5 of each. It isn't that simple. If you could somehow prove that apples and oranges have the same chemical makeup, then that would be a better comparison.

There are religions soley based upon worshiping the sun.  In time, the sun became personified.  Jesus came to represent the sun personified and worshiped.

Read the Bible. There is nothing that insinuates that Jesus came to represent the sun. It would be like claiming Animal Farm represents the Holocaust because it fits your needs.

[PhuzzY LogiK]

Religion has caused wars, but it shouldn't have, since it is strictly against killing. If you tell someone to not do something and they go and do that something, who's fault is it?

Too bad no one informed god of this "strictly against killing" policy when he wiped out EVERY FIRSTBORN in Egypt.  Or the several other times he either murdered on a massive scale or approved of it.

Since you like links so much, knock yourself out: http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm (http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm)

Puppy, I honestly have a hard time with you.  On the one hand, I think your faith is genuine and a wonderful thing.  On the other hand, I feel you live in a naive fairytale about what christianity really is.  No offense, but you've "misspoken" or been flat out wrong on fundamental points of the christian faith multiple times in just this thread.  Every link you post is from a biased, christian source.  That's all well and good, but it leads me to believe you've never honestly approached your faith without a bias yourself.

Just an observation.

[Demagog]

Just out of curiosity, how do you know what you've read isn't from biased anti-Christian sources?

[PhuzzY LogiK]

Just out of curiosity, how do you know what you've read isn't from biased anti-Christian sources?

Fair question.  The short answer?  I know I have read them.

I grew up in the church, and I believed much like yourself, Puppy, and BluePriest, so I very much understand where you're coming from.  At the start of my college career, I was exposed to a more rigorous treatment of history.  I majored in philosophy for a few years, focusing on formal logic/metalogic and philosophy of religion (note: =/= theology).  I made a lot of changes in my life and ended up in engineering.  There I was exposed to physics, math, etc., but I retained an interest in my former studies.

I've been exposed to all parts of the spectrum.  I've read everything from Plato to Aristotle, St. Teresa of Avila to Spinoza, Paul Tillich to C.S. Lewis, Marx to W.C. Smith, Nietzsche to Heidegger, Micheal Behe to Richard Dawkins, Paul Ricoeur to Giorgio Agamben.

One of the men who most influenced me was a Pauline scholar: http://sites.google.com/site/davidodellscott/Home/curriculum-vita (http://sites.google.com/site/davidodellscott/Home/curriculum-vita).  But all of this is neither here nor there.  I don't want to make this about personal history or credentials, because that's a worthless discussion.  I don't think I'm better than anyone else, but I do think I've been fortunate to be exposed to more than the average person.

I've read the biases on both sides.  I've had biases for both sides.  I still have biases, but I can try to minimize them.  My point is, that if you only expose yourself to what christian apologists write (or if you read opposing opinions, but don't temporarily suspend your faith and give them a fair shot), you're missing a large part of the story.  It's not about being "christian" or "anti-christian", it's about making an honest inquiry even if you don't like the answers you're getting.  For example, some very knowledgeable people (such as Bart Ehrman and Bruce Metzger) are considered "anti-christian" by some christians because they don't like their message, but both those men know more about the Bible and Biblical history than anyone who criticizes them.  A lot of christians believe what they want, and will perform any circlejerk of logic necessary to protect that view.

[/soapbox]

[Levgre]

If god exists, he is either has one of the two sets of traits.

Benevolent, but not powerful and not able to interfere on Earth.

Powerful and knowing, but not benevolent (in fact, sadistic).


The world is full of pain, suffering, and completely lacks fairness.  This is more or less by design, in the natural world it is survival of the fittest, those who kill and hurt others the best are the ones who prosper.  Many denizens of the Earth must murder and consume others simply to live.  If god actually played a major role in designing this world, he/she/it has little concern for fairness or pain inflicted on the innocent.

Humans continue that legacy, their natural tendency is to make others suffer for their own good, and are self-centered towards their own needs and wants.  It is only through intellect and perspective that people overcome their cruel nature (and after thousands of years they are still far off).  Again, if God played a role in designing humans, he failed miserably, lacking expertise or ability, or he designed them with no concern to the joys and pains of humans.

Beyond that, there is no inherent fairness in the world.  The worst people can live long, healthy lives, while saintly people and children will die horrible, painful deaths.  Natural disasters strike indiscriminately (despite the bible and some religious people saying that  God uses natural disasters to strike down the immoral).


This is just one part of the argument that shows that a benevolent, powerful God has not had a significant role on this Earth.  Any God that does exist, is out of touch with our lives, and irrelevant in our path to happiness and enlightenment.

[midg3333]

I myself don't believe in a god or higher power. Reasons are as follows:
1) Scientific beliefs are constantly changing as theories are supported then disproven due to some form of evidence that is found that does not match with the theory. The evidence is then analysed and a reason is usually found after enough inspection, resulting in either an addition to the old theory, a new theory, or a conclusion that the evidence was actually due to some form of human error or mistake in procedure. On the other hand, belief in a god or higher power has fluctuated greatly over the years for no apparent reason. There is no real evidence that suggests why the christian god is more real than the Ancient Greek gods, or the Egyptian gods. The existence of a god is often put into question and the way religious people answer answer is that 'god made it that way' or 'that's just how it is'. Due to this, science is constantly becoming more accurate, or at least has less obvious flaws than it did in the past, whereas religion is no more accurate nowadays than it was many thousands of years ago.

2) Many things that the various gods in the past have been 'known' to do, have later been discovered as natural occurences or have some scientific explanation, meaning that the religious belief at the time was very likely wrong at least to an extent. An example of this is the inundation of the Nile river for the ancient Egyptians. The Egyptians believed that a drought occured when a god was angry at them, so they shuld make more sacrifices. The scientific explanation is that due to weather conditions further up the river, the Nile would flood differently at different times. This means that either ancient Egyptian beliefs were wrong, or modern science and weather is wrong. I don't know about you, but I see more evidence on the side of modern science and weather.

3) The 'beginning of time'. Sure, modern science doesn't explain where the super-dense ball of mass or large amount of energy came from originally, but I myself find it easier to believe that a highly compacted ball of mass appeared from nowhere than to believe that a super-powerful being appeared out of nowhere, created a large number of stars and planets, then decided that it would create life on one particular planet of no apparent distinguishing features (that is until he created them). It's not the largest plannet, it's not the smallest either. It doesn't have the largest or smallest star that it is orbiting around, it's not the closest or furthest away from the sun either and it's not exactly in between. If a god did decide to do this, and did choose earth then why choose humans? Sure, humans have a large brain compared to that of other animals, but humans have no thick covering of fur to insulate them, no superior strength, no superior speed or agility, no talons or wings or camouflage. Why is it that god's most treasured possesion is so disadvantaged in this regard. Sure, humans have opposable thumbs and can walk on two legs, but there are so many other things that humans lack.

well, i can't be bothered numbering things from here onwards...
I'm sure somebody who reads this will be thinking by now that I had a flaw in my argument near the beginning of the previous paragraph. I stated that I don't actually know for certain how everything began. This is because scientists have not found this out yet. I am sure that eventually a solution will be found, but until then, all we can do is guess. Those who believe they have felt, heard or sensed a superior being... I will not say that you are wrong in believing that what you sensed was true, but ask yourself whether you actually sensed this being, or whether your strong belief in it led your mind to imagine it so vividly that it seemed real. For those who believe that there is a god solely because otherwise nothing could be created because there was nothing to create it and nothing for it to be created out of, ask yourself what created God.

Oh and another thing is that even religious people have different interpretations of their own religion to other religious people who base their religion off the same god, the same people, the same book. Puppychow believes in the ideal christian world, and I have no problem with that. It quite possibly helps him/her to make morally correct choices and such, but at the same time, there are others of the same religion who use their religion as a reason for killing, stereotypes and discrimination against minority religions. Now both puppy and the other man would consider themselves (christian?) but the other man may consider himself a stronger christian believer than puppy and puppy might not even consider this man a true christian due to his morals and reasons for being a christian.

Oh well, i'm done for now.