Why Believe In God?

[karrie]

There is concrete proof of evolution and thermal laws and air and green and suns that used to be that aren't anymore .......... The only thing that points to the existence of your god, for instance, is a bunch of hearsay in a book: "Well, my cousin knows someone who has a friend who saw Lance Burton perform a miracle" sorta thing. Why believe in gods and not superman, santa, the tooth faerie, etc.? yet normally reasonable people who would call "bullspit" at stuff suck in this fantasy. It is irrational.

Now here's where I get to annoy you with the fine points of what I've said. lol

I jumped into the conversation when it was said that religion was irrational, simply pointing out that 'spirituality' has been proven by science to have a genetic basis. I've never said that there is 'a god' (hypocritical catholic I know). What I did say, is that for people who possess that genetic sense, religion is a human construct to attempt to meld their human experience with their spiritual sense. like helping to meld two inconsistent sets of data.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

I'd have asked for links too if I hadn't heard the scientists talking about it.

Hmm.... Interesting stuff at those links, but I don't read them quite the same way you do. I don't see them as proving there's a genetic difference between people who have a sense of spirituality and those who don't, that line can't really be drawn. Those characteristics exist on a continuum. What they demonstrate is that there are some genetic influences on personality, which is hardly a surprise, and one component of personality is the degree of religiosity. It's a matter of degree, not a hard line that can be drawn between two different personality types. It's not deterministic; note how the scientists repeatedly talk about statistical tendencies, not firm binary distinctions.

 

[hermanntrude]

andyF said:

One huge miracle that would knock your socks off occured in the raising of Lazarus. All the factors you require were present. This guy was festering in a contained vault for days in 110+ degrees, and Jesus didn't rush. He wanted Lazurus really ripe for the non believers!. :laughing7:

OH!! i forgot about the STORY of lazarus. OK i believe now. sorry!

 

[AndyF]

Well, maybe it would if there were any evidence it's true. But there isn't, there's only the one report in the Bible, which was quite clearly written by people with an agenda, not by people interested in objectively reporting the facts.

An event that cannot conceivably be explained any other way but as an 1/ act of god is required; something clearly miraculous, in other words, an obvious and undeniable breaking of the normal rules that govern our reality, 2/ observed by multiple credible and sober witnesses who all report the same thing.

.... All it demands is hearsay from a few witnesses, there is no well attested "miracle" that survives routine scientific scrutiny. It's all hearsay, wishful thinking, credulity, and error.

Well, maybe it would if there were any evidence it's true. But there isn't, there's only the one report in the Bible, which was quite clearly written by people with an agenda, not by people interested in objectively reporting the facts.

Are all the rules known to date? Even when we think we know them, they turn out wrong on occasion. The theory of relativity was re-worked more than once to arrive at a finality. Therefore there's a possibility that the tools we use to scrutinize may be inadequate for our purpose.

But more to the point, the Lazurus event meets your 2 criteria, both in documentation and the credibility of the people. The agenda is to conform to God's laws and convey His message. It's ironic that it is the Jews that you hold suspect, as it is difficult to find a peoples who's mission in life is accurate documentation, and who they themselves swear accountability to a Diety, the very two conditions we would look for to carry truth to future generations. As a result of this we have proof in the Torah in that the context and wording has not changed for generations, and even when occasions of potential error may occur as when the Alexandria commission was finalized and the Greek translations were complete, no errors were found there.

The case for fraud doesn't make sense logically either. I doubt it would gain them points if their first step to gain them favor with God through a new religion they are promoting was to advance a fraud. We would expect the opposite, they would be on their best behaviour. If they were hostile to Jesus, proved by their deceiving heart in this case, neither would it be an advantage to paint Jesus in any favorable light. The effort at documentation would be useless.

AndyF

 

[hermanntrude]

so if i wrote a story about a man who flew by flapping his wings and u read it you'd believe it?

 

[Dexter Sinister]

the Lazurus event meets your 2 criteria, both in documentation and the credibility of the people.

No it doesn't. There is a single, unconfirmed source for the tale in John 11 and 12, Matthew, Mark, and Luke don't mention it at all, there are no corroborative accounts from any other contemporary witnesses, and John's gospel differs in other significant respects from the other three in terms of the order of certain events in Jesus' ministry, most particularly including the dates of the Last Supper and the crucifixion. Not what I'd call a reliable source.

The agenda is to conform to God's laws and convey His message.

Don't think so. The agenda is to promote a new religion by whatever means works. Appeals to ignorance and magical thinking and superstition, and embellishing the story with fabulous events like raising the dead, are among the usual methods.

It's ironic that it is the Jews that you hold suspect, as it is difficult to find a peoples who's mission in life is accurate documentation, and who they themselves swear accountability to a Diety, the very two conditions we would look for to carry truth to future generations.

I never mentioned the Jews, but never mind. Swearing accountability to a deity is no guarantee of accurate documentation. It's more likely a guarantee that the people will document their beliefs and try to justify them by things like appeals to ignorance, magical thinking, superstition, and embellishment. Moreover, there's no evidence I know of to suggest any people's mission in life is accurate documentation until fairly recently in history.

... we have proof in the Torah in that the context and wording has not changed for generations...

That proves nothing except that the wording has been carefully preserved. Doesn't mean any of it must be true.

The case for fraud doesn't make sense logically either.

I didn't try to make a case for fraud, and I'd agree, deliberate fraud doesn't make sense. What does make sense, though, in terms of what we know of human nature, is wishful thinking, self-delusion, faulty memory, and all the other ways by which we fool ourselves into believing what we want to believe. The effect is the same as a deliberate fraud

 

[Nikki]

Why believe in God? Sense of right and wrong

You need god to tell you what is right and wrong? That’s not sad at all…
Besides that, The bible promotes hatred last time I looked hate speech was wrong.

Why believe in God? The Bible

There is no basis behind this. It is not proven that the bible has much more then vivid historical meaning.

Why believe in God? Jesus Christ

No other religious leader, not Buddha, Mohammed, or Confucius has ever claimed to be the Son of God. That is what Jesus did; He claimed to be God in the flesh. He not only claimed to be God, He backed up His claims through His life, death, and resurrection.

First off there is NO proof of the resurrection of Jesus Christ so you can’t use that argument on an atheist. Secondly just because some wack job claims he is related to God doesn’t mean he is telling you the truth. What if Jesus turns out to be some Schizophrenic? Then you have wasted your whole life.