Do you believe in God? Simple question

[Ronsam2006]

I answered your question, twice, (refer to your statement on believers being unwilling to learn). This is your chance to TEACH me.

In the true fashion of someone who is "close minded" and unwilling to LEARN, you ignored my question again (I thought I, the believer, was supposed to do that). You may be older than me but you don't seem to know as much as you think. Even the very nature of our current economy shows that people who are not physically in front of you can have a personal effect on you, that is so elementary. If you are going to ask a question of me then you should be able to answer on your own grounds as well.

so why don't you tell me what any scientist, or anyone has done for you personally? The truth is that MOST of our influences stem from things that we DO NOT have a personal contact with. Things you read, things you see on TV, things on the internet and technology. For you to say "That's what I thought" means that you can answer that question. If you can't your argument is fail and that goes to show you are just talking and have really put no thought into the statement you made to me. None of your statements have validity to me unless you can do that. I would even settle for you being able to make a valid comment with support on anything I said in my past two posts instead of ignoring the discussion and not proving any point at all.

This discussion/debate is pretty interesting. Sport122 keeps saying that BabyJ is close minded, but I think he is more of a "It might be possible, but I'll believe it when I see it" type. Does not mean he is close minded, but instead just sticks to cold hard facts. Now BabyJ asked you a question, "What has Jesus done for you personally?" which pretty much gets a different answer from everyone, even though he has really never done anything. The thought or belief of Jesus has changed the lives of several people though.

"I have not met Thomas Edison, but I can safely say that if he never existed, the light bulb might have never been invented." What I am getting at is the difference between all the influential people/scientists you mentioned and Jesus is that, there is some proof that they existed and lived the influential life they led, however the same cannot be said about Jesus. Sure the thought of his existence has helped many in shaping their lives, etc, but never personally.

Going back to the Thomas Edison comment I made...that was more of a quote of what people usually would argue, but did you know that Egyptians did have a light bulb, with a similar spiral filament that did use electricity or something similar. They had to have light to construct and carve on the walls, and if they had used some type of fire burnt by oil, it would have left even a little bit of soot resin, which no one has been able to find. Where did they get the electricity? There are a lot of history mysteries and some things that can be questioned about the past and how it could be repeating itself, but I choose to believe that simply because it is more credible.

[sport_122]

This discussion/debate is pretty interesting. Sport122 keeps saying that BabyJ is close minded, but I think he is more of a "It might be possible, but I'll believe it when I see it" type. Does not mean he is close minded, but instead just sticks to cold hard facts. Now BabyJ asked you a question, "What has Jesus done for you personally?" which pretty much gets a different answer from everyone, even though he has really never done anything. The thought or belief of Jesus has changed the lives of several people though.

"I have not met Thomas Edison, but I can safely say that if he never existed, the light bulb might have never been invented." What I am getting at is the difference between all the influential people/scientists you mentioned and Jesus is that, there is some proof that they existed and lived the influential life they led, however the same cannot be said about Jesus. Sure the thought of his existence has helped many in shaping their lives, etc, but never personally.

Going back to the Thomas Edison comment I made...that was more of a quote of what people usually would argue, but did you know that Egyptians did have a light bulb, with a similar spiral filament that did use electricity or something similar. They had to have light to construct and carve on the walls, and if they had used some type of fire burnt by oil, it would have left even a little bit of soot resin, which no one has been able to find. Where did they get the electricity? There are a lot of history mysteries and some things that can be questioned about the past and how it could be repeating itself, but I choose to believe that simply because it is more credible.

Good post.

I am saying this because it takes being closed minded to think that science is not a parallel to religion and to be able to ask the question he asked, without being able to provide and answer is showing me that he is not here to gain better understanding of anything, but simply to antagonize.

Meaning, that not everything in science is proven fact. Even the very interpretation of results means that you have to approach your finding with faith. You have to assume that you have covered all your bases, you have to assume that all the methods and the components that make up your experiments were properly understood by past scientist in order to make your results work. You have to believe that there are answers to the questions you are asking, and you have to believe that you can somehow at some point in time come to a realization of those answers. All these things are product of "faithful/hopeful" thinking, which is the way that many religions are structured.

There is no question that Jesus was a real person. There are tons of other writings aside from the Bible to prove his existence. He is not fictional. The Romans kept great records. Even the biblical story of his crucifixion gives enough evidence to be cross referenced. Pontius Pilate, Herod, Peter, John the Baptist...they all exist in non-religious writings from the romans. The Jews wrote about him and there are other records that indicate his actual existence. That is not even a question. The problems with him all come from the claims he made, but Jesus is just as real as MLK or Abe Lincoln.

Good point about the Egyptians...that is one of the cultures that had a much better understanding than we give them credit for.

[BABY J]

Good post.

There is no question that Jesus was a real person. There are tons of other writings aside from the Bible to prove his existence. He is not fictional. The Romans kept great records. Even the biblical story of his crucifixion gives enough evidence to be cross referenced. Pontius Pilate, Herod, Peter, John the Baptist...they all exist in non-religious writings from the romans. The Jews wrote about him and there are other records that indicate his actual existence. That is not even a question. The problems with him all come from the claims he made, but Jesus is just as real as MLK or Abe Lincoln.

http://www.importatlanta.com/forums/...php?p=34774558

[Ronsam2006]

Good post.

I am saying this because it takes being closed minded to think that science is not a parallel to religion and to be able to ask the question he asked, without being able to provide and answer is showing me that he is not here to gain better understanding of anything, but simply to antagonize.

Meaning, that not everything in science is proven fact. Even the very interpretation of results means that you have to approach your finding with faith. You have to assume that you have covered all your bases, you have to assume that all the methods and the components that make up your experiments were properly understood by past scientist in order to make your results work. You have to believe that there are answers to the questions you are asking, and you have to believe that you can somehow at some point in time come to a realization of those answers. All these things are product of "faithful/hopeful" thinking, which is the way that many religions are structured.

There is no question that Jesus was a real person. There are tons of other writings aside from the Bible to prove his existence. He is not fictional. The Romans kept great records. Even the biblical story of his crucifixion gives enough evidence to be cross referenced. Pontius Pilate, Herod, Peter, John the Baptist...they all exist in non-religious writings from the romans. The Jews wrote about him and there are other records that indicate his actual existence. That is not even a question. The problems with him all come from the claims he made, but Jesus is just as real as MLK or Abe Lincoln.

Good point about the Egyptians...that is one of the cultures that had a much better understanding than we give them credit for.

Your first and second paragraphs are mostly your opinions. I only have one question to your from your third paragraph....Do you believe Jesus was a regular man like MLK and Abe or do you believe he was/is god?

Scientists and archeologists still cannot figure how the Egyptians could have built the pyramids. They say it would take so many different angles of pulleys just to get those humongous blocks in perfect place built so it would not even sink into the sand over time, or it would take thousands of people. The Egyptians always refer to the help of a higher power directly, not the prayers, they meant directly. The pyramids are still a mystery...watch this video, I'm not saying believe it...I don't know if it is true myself, but it will give you an idea of what could be possible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvPQc...eature=related

This is what I think about life....I think we are just here as every single other living organism is...just a really advanced form. When you see an apple in its natural environment dying, you just look at it as a natural process, you don't zoom into the apple and see individual bacteria eating the apple out, and you don't hear the bacteria talking, living, etc...basically we are just not that small. I think we are the same way, in a sense that we form civilization and cause pollution, grow stuff and it eat it, eat animals, etc...but when you see the earth from a distance, and you look at major civilizations producing smoke, and basically destroying the earth. What if the earth is just an apple in this crazy universe and we are just the bacteria? Just a thought

[sport_122]

Your first and second paragraphs are mostly your opinions. I only have one question to your from your third paragraph....Do you believe Jesus was a regular man like MLK and Abe or do you believe he was/is god?

Scientists and archeologists still cannot figure how the Egyptians could have built the pyramids. They say it would take so many different angles of pulleys just to get those humongous blocks in perfect place built so it would not even sink into the sand over time, or it would take thousands of people. The Egyptians always refer to the help of a higher power directly, not the prayers, they meant directly. The pyramids are still a mystery...watch this video, I'm not saying believe it...I don't know if it is true myself, but it will give you an idea of what could be possible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvPQc...eature=related

This is what I think about life....I think we are just here as every single other living organism is...just a really advanced form. When you see an apple in its natural environment dying, you just look at it as a natural process, you don't zoom into the apple and see individual bacteria eating the apple out, and you don't hear the bacteria talking, living, etc...basically we are just not that small. I think we are the same way, in a sense that we form civilization and cause pollution, grow stuff and it eat it, eat animals, etc...but when you see the earth from a distance, and you look at major civilizations producing smoke, and basically destroying the earth. What if the earth is just an apple in this crazy universe and we are just the bacteria? Just a thought

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.

[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?

[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

[sport_122]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvPQc...eature=related

by the way did you watch the other two videos. I like em. good find