Do you believe in God? Simple question

[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