Do you believe in God? Simple question

[Ronsam2006]

Do I believe Jesus was God in the flesh? I do. My reasons are based on faith and the things that are written in the Bible and history about his life which because of the scientific process has to be taken on faith. Some people act as if the very existence of Jesus is in question. It is not. Middle East and Roman historians laugh at people who claim Jesus did not live at all. Historians have records from Rome and from the Jewish history that show that Jesus walked and talked on this earth. There are records to show that there were claims of miracles where at least some believed that he was working miracles, and he believed he was. Also, the accounts written are not the only miracles said to have been worked by Jesus. There is more to it. Historians claim that Jesus did not just have 12 men around him. There were many people near Jesus, some looking to find fault, some out of curiosity and some because they believed him to be the Messiah, promised in the Jewish tradition. I read some of Josephus writings, who was a roman historian from the early first century. He spoke about Jesus and the early followers and the rumors of miracles that the gods had empowered them to do. Check him out...don't take my word for it. Also check out Tactus.

Yes my first paragraph is my opinion, but science itself does not even deny that it is not 100%. if you have time watch the video you sent and listen to those scientist discussing the lack of certainty on the history of the pyramids. That is one reason that even scientific results are calculated with a margin of error. The simple process of observation changes which also denotes that previous results were not complete. Science is not 100%, but I welcome you to give me an example that's you may have in your head.

on the Egyptians/pyramids/UFO, you may be very surprised that i actually believe in life on other planets or dimensions or whatever. I think that (especially believers) who think it isn't possible are not reading their own texts which in some places talks about beasts that have several heads or that dawn wings etc. I believe that they have been here on this planet and may still be here. I believe they had regular contact with ancient societies. There is just nothing more to go on.

I respect your opinion on who we are and our significance, I just don't agree with it. I see life as more than that. I don't want to go into that.

but all the things I have said are contributors to my reasoning for believing that God is real.

I am definitely not going to take anyone's word or written proof for the existence of Jesus. He has not done anything for me and that is not even my faith. I am an atheist and until I get my own proof, I will not believe Jesus or any other gods existence. Is it possible that he exists? Sure, anything is possible...but I need more than a book telling me this. The pyramids you can believe is a modern marvel, no one has been able to emulate the exact build and cannot imagine how the pieces were put together. The Bible could have been re-written a few times though. COULD is the key word.

I agree Science has a margin of error, but technology along with evolution has been able to make this margin of error so small, that it barely effects us. This is real proof as we know it, produced through science and mathematics brought down to the smallest margin of error, probably way more accurate than a book passed down generation after generation, especially when know people, including the most influential and religious figures lie, cheat, steal, etc...do you get where I am going with this?

It's like asking, "Who would you trust, person A who has been PROVEN to be 99.9% accurate or person B that CLAIMS to be 100% accurate? Person A is science and is right 99.9% and that .1 that he is off by is the margin of error. Person B is religion. Again this is all my opinion.

What do you see life as? How is the President of the U.S. any more significant than me, in a living organism sense? Sure, he is socially the most powerful man in America, but technically speaking, he is just another living organism that contributes to the progression of another generation of life.

[BABY J]

It's like asking, "Who would you trust, person A who has been PROVEN to be 99.9% accurate or person B that CLAIMS to be 100% accurate? Person A is science and is right 99.9% and that .1 that he is off by is the margin of error. Person B is religion. Again this is all my opinion.

QFT. It's a dangerous man who thinks that his knowledge is absolute beyond the point of accepting or even considering other ideas. This man (and his ideas/stance) is even MORE dangerous w/out an OUNCE of "proof", or w/ "proof" that's not even remotely solid. Science allows the potential to be proven wrong when INTELLECTUALLY challenged w/ sound observation - this is an arbitrary process. Religion does not allow for this... they have "arrived" to the absolute --- that's a SLICK SLOPE to base your life/kids and 10% of your income to every Sunday... especially when you use a handed down document to prove itself. Anytime you use a document to prove itself you're slow-dancing w/ a cult.

[sport_122]

I am definitely not going to take anyone's word or written proof for the existence of Jesus... The Bible could have been re-written a few times though. COULD is the key word.

I can understand you not believing in the divinity of Jesus. I think for the most part the only documents that support those claims are of religious origin, but to deny he ever lived? That is why I listed these people. The people I listed are the historians, not religious writers, of the time period where Jesus of Nazareth was a walking talking man and shortly there after. These people would be just as credible as the historians that discuss the pyramids and historical Egypt, except they would have been more accurate because they were not thousands of years apart which denotes even more accuracy. If its about believing or not believing what is written, then do you believe that Paul Revere, John Hancock, Benjamin Franklin, Abe Lincoln or any of these people were ever alive. Most of what we know about them are from what people wrote about them.

Even the discussion on evolution which starts with Charles Darwin. If you don't look at what people write about him why would you take anything he started or said seriously? The same goes for Einstein or any other theorists or scientist that has not been alive in 50+ years. I guess I am curious at that statement as well, because scientists are using those writings and documentation from early periods to try to determine the validity of their observations. it just seems odd to subscribe to science and its findings, but disagree with the approach. Maybe its just me.

I agree Science has a margin of error, but technology along with evolution has been able to make this margin of error so small, that it barely effects us. This is real proof as we know it, produced through science and mathematics brought down to the smallest margin of error, probably way more accurate than a book passed down generation after generation, especially when know people, including the most influential and religious figures lie, cheat, steal, etc...do you get where I am going with this?

Technology is applied science, and evolution is scientific theory... so I don't understand what you mean. I read it as:

"I agree science has a margin of error, but technology(applied science) along with evolution (a scientific theory) has been able to make this margin of error so small, that it barely effects us..."

This is a confusing statement using the practical definitions of technology and evolution. But I think you are saying that the advances in science are decreasing margin of error? The problem lies in that statement. You should not use inaccurate creations of the origin to justify or define the accuracy of the origin. This erases the ability to make errors.

Also, the Bible is translated from its original greek and hebrew texts. The more we learn about historical languages and cultures, the more we are provided with the ability to make sure that we can properly translate texts in their proper context. The new translations of the bible are typically done for accuracy, which is hard to do when the original language has meanings and uses for words that we do not use in modern times.

Its like solving a math problem, getting it wrong, but changing the equation instead of your answer in order to make your answer right. or
1+1=3. being told thats wrong, but then saying the problem itself should have been 1+2 to justify your answer when in actuality it was wrong.
so its a bad practice to try to use products of the process to test the accuracy of that process.

I understand having an issue with religious figures as well. But I don't think that alters the foundations of what the religion stands for. And I agree, most "christians I know are poorly educated on the foundation of their own faith, but why choose to blame the faith. 3

For instance, most of our government is poorly run. Most of our laws are poorly written, but we still don't say that we should have no government, or no laws because people are breaking them and politicians are corrupt. Because we understand the foundations of the laws. That is the habit with religion. We want to blame religion when the problem lies within the men and women who are abusing the terms. Are you a bad parent because your kids disobey your rules? Should speeding laws be retracted because some people abuse and ignore them? Should police officers not be allowed to carry guns because some of them fire them without just cause? Science makes mistakes and people misuse technology all the time, but do we say we should stop creating things and ignore scientific progress? So why is there a double standard for christians/religious people?

The margin of error for science is much more than a tenth of a percent. I think the reason that I would not put faith/trust completely into science, is that throughout history there have been more changes and counter opinion in science. Theories, new sciences, scientific debunking, corrected theories, etc have plagued the scientific community since the wide spread use of the scientific method. So what I am understanding is that PROVEN only means that it has not been found to be inaccurate yet.

but I do not deny the importance of science. its is only when we try to separate it from faith and treat it as if it is the solution to the problems of our world while religion is the culptrit that I have a fundamental problem.

Quick question: in a world with no religion what becomes the replacement for the personification of faith and hope? this is purely an opinionated question.

[DynamicSound]

You have it right there. Weak minded people have to believe in something to get through their life.

[BABY J]

Quick question: in a world with no religion what becomes the replacement for the personification of faith and hope? this is purely an opinionated question.

You just said it -- "personification". Root word - person... as in PERSONAL. Anytime your "hope" or "faith" comes from another being... then you are setting yourself up for failure.

In basic training - there were guys praying to pass PT or challenges. I didn't need that "external" FAUX energy. I said to myself -"I AM GOING TO DO IT". THAT is personal... THAT is personification.

I've seen people literally pray to pass tests in college -- some flunk, some pass. I pulled that energy from INSIDE and I did just fine. People pray... if they get what they wanted "God" gets the credit. People pray... and when they DON'T get what they pray for and it's "God didn't mean for me to have it" --- HOLY FUCK that is a slick slope. It's VERY sad that people can't/don't give themselves enough credit and need an external catalyst or explanation on why/how they exist. Bc at the end of the day, there is not a SINGLE person on this planet who has gotten what they prayed for w/ any repeatable amount of success... you don't always get what you pray for in life, you don't always get what deserve in life... you get what you get. When will people realize this?

[sport_122]

You just said it -- "personification". Root word - person... as in PERSONAL. Anytime your "hope" or "faith" comes from another being... then you are setting yourself up for failure.

You cannot live without hope and faith in other things. You pay taxes(for gov't services), you ask people for advice, you care or have love for people. all these things are conducive of not living for self and only self interest. In fact if you were living for self interest I don't know why you would care what other people put their faith in. It wouldn't matter to you and you would believe that nobody should care or listen to what you have to say anyway because they should all be focused on what they want.

Life itself for all things depends on someone or something else doing its job. You just don't seem to believe that any of the infinite number of other factors relate to you. I believe they do.

You went to basic, I am assuming you are in service or participated in ROTC or reserves. (Thanks for that BTW). If you did then you should know the importance of brother hood and how all parts of the military have to sync up in order for it to function properly. Without faith that one soldier is going to watch your back the marines would not have the incredible code of conduct that they have. The faith they have in one another is powerful enough to drive them to lose their lives for their brothers and their country. Is that wrong?

You buy a house, you get a loan, that takes other people keeping good records on you. You pay cash for that house. That takes your employer or business continuing in success to be able to supply you with funds. On public roads you expect the car next to you to stay in their lane. You expect them to look and give you space when they want to get over. 99% of your day is conducive of someone else doing what is normal to you.

There are 6+billion people in this world. 6+billion people have different desires throughout. No two are exactly alike. Common faith keeps these people from becoming so individualistic that you don't care and you ignore the need for faith and hope in others.

you don't always get what you pray for in life, you don't always get what deserve in life... you get what you get. When will people realize this?

I agree, but I don't focus on the negative of that statement. because it can also be written.

You get some of the things you pray for, you get some things in life that you work for and "deserve", but if you never pray and never work for some of those things, then you never get them.

For your tests, you didn't just say, I can do it. You put work into it. You prepared yourself. You can't do that without someone else giving you the information that you need to learn.

My point is that you cannot only rely on yourself and completely drop trust in other things/people and live a happy life. unless you want to be miserable, but then you would still be happy because you wanted to be miserable and you got what you wanted.

[Ronsam2006]

I can understand you not believing in the divinity of Jesus. I think for the most part the only documents that support those claims are of religious origin, but to deny he ever lived? That is why I listed these people. The people I listed are the historians, not religious writers, of the time period where Jesus of Nazareth was a walking talking man and shortly there after. These people would be just as credible as the historians that discuss the pyramids and historical Egypt, except they would have been more accurate because they were not thousands of years apart which denotes even more accuracy. If its about believing or not believing what is written, then do you believe that Paul Revere, John Hancock, Benjamin Franklin, Abe Lincoln or any of these people were ever alive. Most of what we know about them are from what people wrote about them.

This whole paragraph leads me to believe that you are trying to make me believe in something. Comparing Jesus to the pyramids is ridiculous, and comparing the historians that wrote about Jesus to the historians that wrote about the Pyramids is ridiculous. One is an architectural marvel and the other is a debatable mystery. I am not asking for the credibility of the historians, because there is no way you can prove it other than a document.

Technology is applied science, and evolution is scientific theory... so I don't understand what you mean. I read it as:

"I agree science has a margin of error, but technology(applied science) along with evolution (a scientific theory) has been able to make this margin of error so small, that it barely effects us..."

This is a confusing statement using the practical definitions of technology and evolution. But I think you are saying that the advances in science are decreasing margin of error? The problem lies in that statement. You should not use inaccurate creations of the origin to justify or define the accuracy of the origin. This erases the ability to make errors.

I was not referring to the theory of evolution, but rather the advancement of science. Historians, architects, geologists etc all over the world use APPLIED science and technology to determine history.

Also, the Bible is translated from its original greek and hebrew texts. The more we learn about historical languages and cultures, the more we are provided with the ability to make sure that we can properly translate texts in their proper context. The new translations of the bible are typically done for accuracy, which is hard to do when the original language has meanings and uses for words that we do not use in modern times.

Its like solving a math problem, getting it wrong, but changing the equation instead of your answer in order to make your answer right. or
1+1=3. being told thats wrong, but then saying the problem itself should have been 1+2 to justify your answer when in actuality it was wrong.
so its a bad practice to try to use products of the process to test the accuracy of that process.

I think what you are trying to say is, it is very hard to translate ancient text. I agree with you completely, but if this is the case, how can you believe in a lot of it. Translating Hebrew text is an age old process that is confusing. You know how the words in this language hold a numerical value, so a lot of the words have been lost in translation, like the words God and Love have the same numerical value.

I understand having an issue with religious figures as well. But I don't think that alters the foundations of what the religion stands for. And I agree, most "christians I know are poorly educated on the foundation of their own faith, but why choose to blame the faith.

For instance, most of our government is poorly run. Most of our laws are poorly written, but we still don't say that we should have no government, or no laws because people are breaking them and politicians are corrupt. Because we understand the foundations of the laws. That is the habit with religion. We want to blame religion when the problem lies within the men and women who are abusing the terms. Are you a bad parent because your kids disobey your rules? Should speeding laws be retracted because some people abuse and ignore them? Should police officers not be allowed to carry guns because some of them fire them without just cause? Science makes mistakes and people misuse technology all the time, but do we say we should stop creating things and ignore scientific progress? So why is there a double standard for christians/religious people?

I never blamed the religion for the shitty people in it. I never blame the law when I see a power hungry cop, I just blame the person. You keep misunderstanding me, I never said stop the religion, but I will not believe in it. What's so hard to understand with that? You know what I hate, missionaries and random people that try to convince me into the religion. This goes to anyone----What makes you so your religion so right, that you must go around spreading it?

The margin of error for science is much more than a tenth of a percent. I think the reason that I would not put faith/trust completely into science, is that throughout history there have been more changes and counter opinion in science. Theories, new sciences, scientific debunking, corrected theories, etc have plagued the scientific community since the wide spread use of the scientific method. So what I am understanding is that PROVEN only means that it has not been found to be inaccurate yet.

How can you say the margin of error for science is more than .1? For which science are you referring to? The numbers I stated were just to make a point, not real numbers. Proven means it has been proven through applied mathematics and science to work for the reason it was created for without defects.

Quick question: in a world with no religion what becomes the replacement for the personification of faith and hope? this is purely an opinionated question.

In a world with no religion, you choose what is right or wrong, not your religion. LOL