Do you believe in God?

[VirtualPA]

I am interested to know what the majority of people belive.

I personally believe in a Christian God, Heaven and hell etc.

I raised a strict an athiest

I agree that some church establishments have been pretty patriarchal SGB, but there are also feminist Christians and ways of understanding the teachings and actions of Jesus which are compatible with feminism. For example think how he treated the woman at the well, not with contempt but as a worthwhile person.

Slippy, or just not fundamentalist? Surely it's far worse when someone is so dogmatically certain they claim to have all the answers.

"It's slippy. It's like trying to ladle fog."

No, I'm happy with people not being fundamentalist and I wish they'd say more often when they don't have all the answers.

The thing about trusting science is that you are not trusting some absolute authority - the mantra of a good scientist is "I look forward to integrating future criticisms" or something similar. It doesn't pretend to have all the answers - its role is to ask the best questions.

I'd be quite happy as a Christian to say that, too

"I look forward to integrating future criticisms"

Now you see (WRT Diplodoris comment on 'feminist christians') this is one of the things that does boggle me. Why the brand loyalty to one particular myth system - if you are one of these people with a brain wired to need imaginary friends (I think there has been some research done which appears to have shown that there is an area of the brain which is a kind of Yes/No switch for religiousness). Why not pick a nice one that isn't full of idiot taboos and dodgy politics?
Is it just a cultural thing - that if at some point in your life you feel the need to add a layer of superstition, you generally trot off to the one that's most culturally familiar? Is there some difference in the wiring between those who do that and those who do pick a different option?

That is the clincher really UD, Science actively seeks change within itself. The mechanism for change is inherent within it.

Religion is more about maintaining a status quo.

I do see your point SGB. But personally I choose Christ-ianity because I want to follow the teachings of Christ, even though I disagree strongly with some of the actions of some churches (homophobia, sexism and the like).

"Why not pick a nice one that isn't full of idiot taboos and dodgy politics?"

UQD - these paragraphs:

"The first is that atheists come from all walks of life and so it is obvious that we are not all going to agree about everything. The only thing we can all say for certain that we have in common is our lack of belief in gods. What we choose to do with that, how we express it, what we think of people who do believe, how we express that, etc., etc., will be different for each individual."

"Arguing with the religious, there is often a sense of shifting sands - of "well, this isn't quite what that means" or "well, most Christians don't really read it that way" or "we don't take that bit literally" or "well, modern thinking says..." It's slippy. It's like trying to ladle fog."

strike me as quite similar really.

If you change the first one to read "Christians (or whichever group) come from all walks of life... " does it start to make sense of the second?

Which 'nice one' isn't full of taboos and dodgy politics?

Almost like, there is a tree in a forest that I think exists but I've never seen it so it just might not? Amicissima , I tie myself up in knots with such thoughts...really like doing though. Maybe when we 'dream', that is real and when we are awake, we are really dreaming? What is reality anyway?

Allbie: Some of the modern pagan ones seem to be refreshingly free of sexual dysfunction, bigotry and the need to annoy other people - though my examination of them has only been superficial. I don't know why more people don't make up their own and give them a go - it worked just fine for L Ron Hubbard after all - many people find him and his mob of nutjobs ludicrous (and nasty) but it made him pots of money.

roffle @ " or if, in fact, I was just in it for the biscuits"

Jinglejangle you mentioned babies born iwth hiv, etc. What a lovley guy to worship!(as in God)

Please take note that this is not the doing of the loving God I serve.

St John 10 v 10 (New living Translation)

The thief's purpsoe is to steal and kill and destroy. My purpose is to give life in all fullness.

Who is the bible talking about as the thief (satan). Some may say the devil, he is the one who is doing all the killing etc.

What we call acts of God is not that at all. What pleasure does it give God is seeing people dying all around through accidnets etc.

The devil does the destroying and many times people Blame GOD!!!

Hi UQD. I was very fortunate to be raised in a Christian family. I could not say what I would believe if this had not been the case, but having experienced Christianity I would not give it up for anything. Hence my starting point.

I totally understand your 3rd point, it's such a cliche to have to keep saying 'no, the Bible actually says this, or that'. But the point is, the Bible is trying to introduce us to God. How to explain the infinite to the finite? Some passages can be understood straight away. Some need a little more exploration and explanation. Although actually, my children have no trouble with the basic concepts of God and Jesus, sin and redemption.

And as for 'resorting to texts' - if I believe the Bible is the Word of God, then something that is 'God-breathed' is going to put my point across far better than I could ever say it.

I think if someone was just 'in it for the biscuits', they would quit pretty quickly. You can't do something half-heartedly.

Lol @ amicissima - does your head hurt a lot? Had to look up 'homunculus'

BlueEyeshadow last I looked the authors of the gospels were unknown (not even names). There is different opinion as to when they were written, but apparently some scholars now say it could have been as early as 40 years after jesus died.

I suppose it looked nicer to give them names, but those were added on in AD 180.

btw the links Diplodorus put up essentially agree with me.

Mark is believed to be the first gospel written around A.D. 60. Matthew and Luke follow and are written between A.D. 60-70; John is the final gospel, written between A.D. 90-100.>>

The devil does the destroying and many times people Blame GOD!!!

Blueeyeshadow - it's not quite the same thing. How is it that nonbelievers can justify themselves without using "slippery", hard-to-pin-down arguments?

robberbutton - I wasn't entirely serious about being in it for the biscuits. I was a believer of sorts - only because I had never questioned it. I was "culturally" a Christian thanks to my parents - I didn't even realise going to church was optional until I was about 8 or 9.

It's surely a cultural thing. You were raised in a Christian family. Someone having no contact with believers in god, or a bible, to tell them that they "should" be thinking it exists, would not have a concept of the Christian god. This is perplexing - surely it should provide a way of making itself known? The story of the Cargo Cults is very interesting.

amicissima - the "proof" is not the issue, but rather the comparative evidence. If you wish to claim something extraordinary, you need to back it up. That's why I don't believe there are homunculi inside my computer - of course it is an amusing theoretical idea, but it doesn't take a minute to shoot it down with alternative evidence. Same goes for gods.

mum2bless - you will be aware, I'm sure, that people who do not believe in god do not believe in the devil, for the same reasons. Not really relevant.

Blueeyeshadow is quite right. Atheists believe a huge range of things with vastly differing levels of sophistication, as do Christians and people of other faiths. It's just nonsense to say that this is because one group "comes from all walks of life" but that the other is somehow "slippery" because they don't all believe the same thing.

That's a false equation. I have not said atheists believe different things "because" they come from all walks of life, or that Christians are slippery "because" they don't all believe the same. Read it again.

My point is that atheists have one strong, central tenet - not even "belief" - which is easy to explain, logically solid, and does not require the assistance of extra supporting texts to elucidate.

I hope for the same from believers, but I don't get it from them - the arguments are constantly shifted. Individual Christians move the goalposts during the argument.

OK? I have tried to explain this as simply as I can. Do let me know if you'd like it dumbing down further and I shall do my best.

But Zephirine, the christians claim the different things they believe are about the same thing. Also many christians seem a bit hazy about what they themselves believe.

You can ask me my opinion/belief about something and I will generally give a straight answer.

Here's an example.

Do I believe in capital punishment.

Yes, providing adequate precautions are taken against executing the wrong person too often.

I can certainly expand on that, but I can state the main point with ease and you weren't asked to go read a book to get the answer. I already knew what I thought. I didn't try to redefine the terms 'capital' or 'punishment' either.

backtotalkaboutthis,

To put it a little bit differently, when I ask someone "Why do you (not) believe X?" I expect to get a simple one-line answer which is logically consistent, evidence-based and intellectually honest.

Atheists, all very different people, will give broadly similar answers which usually meet the above criteria.

Religious believers, all very different people, will give varying answers which usually fail the above criteria.

Religion isn't evidence-based. I can't see why you persist in actually asking the question. You prefer to take a perspective on certain things that is evidence-based. And that is fine. But asking for evidence for something that isn't evidence based is pointless. As these threads testify.