Does God Exist?

[PhuzzY LogiK]

Puppy, don't mean to gang up on you, just wanted to point two things out.

As for using American textbooks as a reference.. Use some actual sources.

Um, do I even need to respond to that? XD.

Yes.  I could drag up a laundry list of questionable moves by school boards, but look at what just passed in Texas:

"After three days of turbulent meetings, the Texas Board of Education on Friday approved a social studies curriculum that will put a conservative stamp on history and economics textbooks, stressing the superiority of American capitalism, questioning the Founding Fathers’ commitment to a purely secular government and presenting Republican political philosophies in a more positive light."

"There are seven members of the conservative bloc on the board, but they are often joined by one of the other three Republicans on crucial votes. There were no historians, sociologists or economists consulted at the meetings, though some members of the conservative bloc held themselves out as experts on certain topics."

"Mr. Bradley won approval for an amendment saying students should study “the unintended consequences” of the Great Society legislation, affirmative action and Title IX legislation. He also won approval for an amendment stressing that Germans and Italians as well as Japanese were interned in the United States during World War II, to counter the idea that the internment of Japanese was motivated by racism.

Other changes seem aimed at tamping down criticism of the right. Conservatives passed one amendment, for instance, requiring that the history of McCarthyism include “how the later release of the Venona papers confirmed suspicions of communist infiltration in U.S. government.” The Venona papers were transcripts of some 3,000 communications between the Soviet Union and its agents in the United States.

Mavis B. Knight, a Democrat from Dallas, introduced an amendment requiring that students study the reasons “the founding fathers protected religious freedom in America by barring the government from promoting or disfavoring any particular religion above all others.”

It was defeated on a party-line vote. "

"Don McLeroy is a balding, paunchy man with a thick broom-handle mustache who lives in a rambling two-story brick home in a suburb near Bryan, Texas. When he greeted me at the door one evening last October, he was clutching a thin paperback with the skeleton of a seahorse on its cover, a primer on natural selection penned by famed evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr. We sat down at his dining table, which was piled high with three-ring binders, and his wife, Nancy, brought us ice water in cut-crystal glasses with matching coasters. Then McLeroy cracked the book open. The margins were littered with stars, exclamation points, and hundreds of yellow Post-its that were brimming with notes scrawled in a microscopic hand. With childlike glee, McLeroy flipped through the pages and explained what he saw as the gaping holes in Darwin’s theory. “I don’t care what the educational political lobby and their allies on the left say,” he declared at one point. “Evolution is hooey.” This bled into a rant about American history. “The secular humanists may argue that we are a secular nation,” McLeroy said, jabbing his finger in the air for emphasis. “But we are a Christian nation founded on Christian principles. The way I evaluate history textbooks is first I see how they cover Christianity and Israel. Then I see how they treat Ronald Reagan—he needs to get credit for saving the world from communism and for the good economy over the last twenty years because he lowered taxes.”

Views like these are relatively common in East Texas, a region that prides itself on being the buckle of the Bible Belt. But McLeroy is no ordinary citizen. The jovial creationist sits on the Texas State Board of Education, where he is one of the leaders of an activist bloc that holds enormous sway over the body’s decisions. As the state goes through the once-in-a-decade process of rewriting the standards for its textbooks, the faction is using its clout to infuse them with ultraconservative ideals. Among other things, they aim to rehabilitate Joseph McCarthy, bring global-warming denial into science class, and downplay the contributions of the civil rights movement."

"Until recently, Texas’s influence was balanced to some degree by the more-liberal pull of California, the nation’s largest textbook market. But its economy is in such shambles that California has put off buying new books until at least 2014. This means that McLeroy and his ultraconservative crew have unparalleled power to shape the textbooks that children around the country read for years to come."

Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html)
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2010/1001.blake.html (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2010/1001.blake.html)

Oh sure, you can say you believe in the Zeitgeist. It can be your new religion! Just don't go masquerading it as fact. I'm not masquerading Christianity as fact, just that I believe it is.

Honest question, what's the difference between calling it fact, and believing it's fact?

[Kurohami]

When you call something a fact, you expect other people to believe it, and you will be expected to be able to support it with evidences. While a belief is something you think is true but with no solid evidence, you can't expect others to believe your belief is true just because you believe it.

[acelink]

When you call something a fact, you expect other people to believe it

That is wrong.  e.g Tell a neo-nazi there was no holocaust.  (poor example) It does not matter if something is believable to make it a fact.  A fact is something that is real.

you will be expected to be able to support it with evidences. While a belief is something you think is true but with no solid evidence, you can't expect others to believe your belief is true just because you believe it.

That has a lot to do with proving what is "real".  Just because it is believable does not make it real.  That is more about 'philosophy' than anything else.  Please start a new thread if you are going to continue that conversation.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It does not matter if you make a logical argument in the case of a god.  Logic is thrown out and I frown upon all the faiths that try to use logic in a one sided way. 

Earth was the center of the universe at some point in time to some religions. Earth was seen as special for everything revolved around us, humanity.  That view was sustained by the church and all those who opposed that view were blasphemous.  Only after there was IRREFUTABLE evidence did that latter change.  Religions make assumptions and unwilling to change unless IRREFUTABLE evidence is found.

My point with that is.  Religions will never lose god based upon logic.  There is no irrefutable evidence to DISPROVE a god.  Therefore, there is NO POINT in trying to logically prove god does not exist to a religion.  Debasing a religious person is the first step to questioning if there REALLY is a god--that is why the previous argument with Christianity loosely fit into this thread.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for me...  I do believe there is at least 'a god'.  Not because a religion (or all religions) says god does exist. 

I do not see him as omnipotent but rather watching from far far away.  Our observable universe is 93 billion light-years across.  Most people are NOT able to comprehend how big that really is, it looks pretty in words but lets convert that to numbers.  93,000,000,000 light years.  Well that means nothing to us as a light year.  How big is a light year in feet?  ~31,000,000,000,000,000.  So how far across is our universe in feet?  2,883,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 feet (don't make me do it in meters, you European bastards.  You get my point).

That helps give scale to the equation.  I have a hard time believing that any one thing has control over that much space.  Can he see us individually? Maybe, I do not know if it has that great of a telescope.  I do believe something does exist beyond what we are able to understand (not aliens either)... I don't know if I would call it divine but I would still call it a god. 

I do not know if god created the universe and I really do not care.  I know the universe does exist and I could care less as to why it does exist.  If I was looking to answer that question as to "why we exist", I would rather answer that myself than through religion.  I would start with philosophy-- "what is real?"

[Kurohami]

If the person you are talking to does not agree that your "fact" is fact, it will be not much different than when it is merely a belief. And really, the "facts" we are all talking about might as well be proved wrong some days,  can you EVER be certain that the your "fact" is real? And if it isn't, then that would be the same as a belief. Basically, facts and belief are only presented in different ways, that's all the difference. You might say chicken hatches from eggs, but then what if one day chicken no longer hatches from eggs but is born directly from a hen? You might say the universe is created by a Big Bang, that might as well be proved wrong someday.

[vrt]

If the person you are talking to does not agree that your "fact" is fact, it will be not much different than when it is merely a belief. And really, the "facts" we are all talking about might as well be proved wrong some days,  can you EVER be certain that the your "fact" is real? And if it isn't, then that would be the same as a belief. Basically, facts and belief are only presented in different ways, that's all the difference. You might say chicken hatches from eggs, but then what if one day chicken no longer hatches from eggs but is born directly from a hen? You might say the universe is created by a Big Bang, that might as well be proved wrong someday.

I see you're trying real hard, but somewhere along the line you crossed the point where your argument makes sense.

[Demagog]

Perhaps he doesn't speak english perfectly? I know a lot of stuff gets lost in translation when people use a language they aren't "perfect" at.

[acelink]

If the person you are talking to does not agree that your "fact" is fact, it will be not much different than when it is merely a belief. 

I suggest take a philosophy class.  As I said before, a fact is something that is real.  It is irrelevant if is believable but if it is "believable" it is more likely to be accepted.

And really, the "facts" we are all talking about might as well be proved wrong some days,  can you EVER be certain that the your "fact" is real? And if it isn't, then that would be the same as a belief.

If you are an existentialist, I doubt we will ever be able to prove anything to you.  "What is real?" is a harder question than it sounds. 

You might say the universe is created by a Big Bang, that might as well be proved wrong someday.

That question is answered upon our current level of understanding.  Big Bang is just a theory but it is derived from science fact.  (FACT: Our universe is expanding. Theory: therefore if we were to 'rewind' it... everything would come from a singularity.)  Big Bang is not a fact but is a theory.  People have this weird way of skewing things to make things sound like facts. 

A fact is something that is real.  You are starting to sway into "what is truth?" realm

This deserves to be moved to a different thread.  It is not about 'god speak' anymore

[Kurohami]

But if your belief turned out to be true, then was it a fact all along or was it a belief? When you think of something as fact, it's not necessarily true, but you have evidence to support it, so you think it's a fact. When you have a belief, you don't have evidence to support it but it's not necessarily false either, you just plainly believe it to be true. So, you "expect" people to agree with your facts because you have evidence, but you don't expect people to agree with your beliefs because you have no evidence. I don't take philosophy class, because I'm not sure if that would help me in real life in anyway, but I do think about stuff. Sometimes I'm wrong, sometimes you don't find me making a lot of sense, but those are just the way I think about things. And I don't use a translator nothing comprehensive comes out of a translator except when the translator is a human.

[acelink]

But if your belief turned out to be true, then was it a fact all along or was it a belief? When you think of something as fact, it's not necessarily true, but you have evidence to support it, so you think it's a fact. When you have a belief, you don't have evidence to support it but it's not necessarily false either, you just plainly believe it to be true. So, you "expect" people to agree with your facts because you have evidence, but you don't expect people to agree with your beliefs because you have no evidence. I don't take philosophy class, because I'm not sure if that would help me in real life in anyway, but I do think about stuff. Sometimes I'm wrong, sometimes you don't find me making a lot of sense, but those are just the way I think about things. And I don't use a translator nothing comprehensive comes out of a translator except when the translator is a human.

This conversation goes more along the lines of philosophy, not "Does God Exist".  Please create a new thread.   "What is real?" is a suitable topic for what you are trying to approach.

Philosophy class helps you think.  You may think about stuff but how far are you able to go all by your lonesome? I have yet to take a philosophy class but I enjoy a lot of the arguments/questions/debates philosophy covers. 

[Kurohami]

Well, puppychow asked the question. I'm not the one starting to talk about his.

[PuppyChow]

Sorry this took so long. I haven't had much time .

The time of Joseph and Mary travelling to Bethlehem would be a nice one to mention. Even taking in all statements made from the Bible to get an idea of when it happened; the timeline just doesn't allow for it to be near the same time as Jesus' supposed birth. It does fit the Messiah prophecy that way, though. Hint. Hint.

I'll say it again: Jesus WASN'T born on December 25th. That's an arbitrary date the Church made up to get pagans to convert.

Next to that, the circumstancial evidence against the Bible is staggering, and you know that as well as anyone who's debated religion. Dinosaurs would be a popular example.

I'm not a fundamentalist, and I actually believe that dinosaurs DID exist. God created them too. I see the story of creation as figurative.

But you can't make a case out of just circumstantial evidence.

And you'd be surprised at the amount of fundamentalist still in this world. There's still people protesting against Spongebob because it offends Christianity.

Okay. Not where I live .

Oh sure, you can say you believe in the Zeitgeist. It can be your new religion! Just don't go masquerading it as fact. I'm not masquerading Christianity as fact, just that I believe it is.

Not my point. My point is that the author(s) of the Bible never used any valid references either. Yet you take it as fact, while by the same logic, you denounce something else. See what I'm trying to say?

Yes, but you don't seem to understand my view.

For the purpose of the debate, I'm going to assume Christianity and other religions have flaws like you say they do.

Zeitgeist has flaws.
Christianity has flaws.
Islam has flaws.
Judaism has flaws.

So Zeitgeist is more akin to a religion than a documentary, since no documentary I know of has flaws.

Now, do people believe in both Christianity and Islam? Are they a hypocrite if they only believe one? No. They just don't believe in one and believe in the other. That's what I'm saying.

You can believe in Zeitgeist, but it's basically a religion unto itself, albeit a religion with no God.

The valid points are found in that he sums up a lot of Gods, or prophets, that have similarities to Jesus. I know these aren't all true (in fact, some of them are complete bogus in that movie), but you'll find that religions from all over the world, quite a few predating Christianity, have similar elements. Combine that with other, pagan influences (the Ark of Noah), political ones (the number '666' as a reference to Nero), and parts of the astrology references mentioned in Zeitgeist, and you may see why I consider it to have a core of truth somewhere.

The astrology references revolve around using Jesus as an allegory for the sun, since he is the son of God.

This pun (and that's all it is) works in English. But not in Hebrew, not in Latin, nor Italian. Jesus really isn't symbolic of the sun.

12. A big number in the Bible. So is 40, but you don't see him mention 40 anywhere. The truth is, he picks out a few similarities and builds his entire case on those, ignoring the other 90% of the Bible that doesn't work. There may indeed be few (and those are stretchs, to say the least) parallels between the Bible and astrology, but there is MUCH MUCH more that doesn't parallel. The parallels are simply coincidences created from similar societies.

http://www.carm.org/christianity/bible/doesnt-religion-mithra-prove-christianity-false

If you don't feel like reading, here we go:

Pagan parallels with the Jesus story are pretty stupid. The writers of the New Testament were all Jews that shunned pagans; why would they borrow from them? Most of Jesus' main actions are foretold in the Old Testament, so really the Bible doesn't even need to copy pagan religions.

Anyway, here's the gods he uses. And my response.

Horus: Completely bogus

Attis: Virgin birth? Yes. But not really. Kinda. Maybe. I guess you could spin it that way. Rest? No. Castrated himself, not crucified. Wasn't resurrected. http://www.maicar.com/GML/Attis.html

Krishna: Completely bogus

Dionysus: Father: Zeus Mother: Mortal woman. No virgin birth. At least not in the way Jesus was. Born Dec. 25th? Cite that please. I couldn't find it. Miracles? Of course; he is, after all, a god himself. Gods preform miracles. Not a man, not the son of God (the son of Zeus maybe, but in Greek mythology that made him a god too; just a lesser one). Jesus turned water into wine partly to make him seem superior to Dionysus. Resurrected? He never died...

Mithra: ...Why am I even doing this? Screw it. I know nothing about Mithra. Go look at the link at the top.

Orion's Belt: Jesus wasn't born Dec. 25th. Get over it.

[vrt]

I'll say it again: Jesus WASN'T born on December 25th. That's an arbitrary date the Church made up to get pagans to convert.

I'm talking about a few decennia, not months.

Okay. Not where I live .

I'm quite sure you're American.

Yes, but you don't seem to understand my view.

For the purpose of the debate, I'm going to assume Christianity and other religions have flaws like you say they do.

Zeitgeist has flaws.
Christianity has flaws.
Islam has flaws.
Judaism has flaws.

So Zeitgeist is more akin to a religion than a documentary, since no documentary I know of has flaws.

People don't kill eachother over documentaries.

Now, do people believe in both Christianity and Islam? Are they a hypocrite if they only believe one? No. They just don't believe in one and believe in the other. That's what I'm saying.

You can believe in Zeitgeist, but it's basically a religion unto itself, albeit a religion with no God.

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.

The astrology references revolve around using Jesus as an allegory for the sun, since he is the son of God.

This pun (and that's all it is) works in English. But not in Hebrew, not in Latin, nor Italian. Jesus really isn't symbolic of the sun.

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

12. A big number in the Bible. So is 40, but you don't see him mention 40 anywhere. The truth is, he picks out a few similarities and builds his entire case on those, ignoring the other 90% of the Bible that doesn't work. There may indeed be few (and those are stretchs, to say the least) parallels between the Bible and astrology, but there is MUCH MUCH more that doesn't parallel. The parallels are simply coincidences created from similar societies.

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

Pagan parallels with the Jesus story are pretty stupid. The writers of the New Testament were all Jews that shunned pagans; why would they borrow from them? Most of Jesus' main actions are foretold in the Old Testament, so really the Bible doesn't even need to copy pagan religions.

Woah, woah, woah. Slow down there.

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.
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?

Horus: Completely bogus

And yet Egyptian religion has a lot of similar stories.

Attis: Virgin birth? Yes. But not really. Kinda. Maybe. I guess you could spin it that way. Rest? No. Castrated himself, not crucified. Wasn't resurrected. http://www.maicar.com/GML/Attis.html

I never said I agreed with the Attis reference.

Krishna: Completely bogus

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

Dionysus: Father: Zeus Mother: Mortal woman. No virgin birth. At least not in the way Jesus was. Born Dec. 25th? Cite that please. I couldn't find it. Miracles? Of course; he is, after all, a god himself. Gods preform miracles. Not a man, not the son of God (the son of Zeus maybe, but in Greek mythology that made him a god too; just a lesser one). Jesus turned water into wine partly to make him seem superior to Dionysus. Resurrected? He never died...

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

Orion's Belt: Jesus wasn't born Dec. 25th. Get over it.

Yeah, I figured that one out.


Also, I must be going to an even lower level of hell for posting this on Easter. xD