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

The question is, is it more plausible that someone came back from the dead and, you know, all the god stuff, or that a group of people either convinced themselves that he did, or found it expedient to claim that he did.

Don't some people just agree with other folk because they feel that one particular person has a certain degree of power. Like the popular kid in class who gets the other peers to do as they say, repeat what they say etc, to the point where the others are too scared to not follow for fear of looking stupid or being bullied? Some people need to belong to a group and won't jeopardise their position/standing even when they really don't like what is happening. Isn't that being a follower?

Sorry dawntigga, only just saw your question! Unfortunately (for the purposes of continuing debate) I would have to hold my hands up as a believer in the Bible as the literal word of God. I think it's open to interpretation in that we all have a personal, individual response to it, but ultimately I am not going to use the 'well they said that because it was x years ago but it's not going to apply now' argument.

Just for fun, though, I did think about Luke 14:26: If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters?yes, even his own life?he cannot be my disciple.

You can conclude:
a) Jesus is telling us to hate people, but that goes against almost everything else that he says.
b) it is a mistranslation of the greek word miseo, and should read 'love less than'. (See Matthew 10:37) But apparently miseo has a very strong meaning in Greek, so would that be softening what Jesus said too much? or
c) Jesus used the word 'hate' here for effect. He knew that people would be able to compare it to his other teachings, but also, that he wanted to say very strongly that love for God needs to be first, above everything else in your life. If anything does come between you and God then it is an idol (even family).

What am I doing on here at 2:30am? (opps don't tell DH)

Well, for all you other sad obsessive interested people, I have THE RESULTS!

(although viewed through 2am glasses.)

So, based on a Yes/No question and answer:

Do you believe in God?

253 people responded.

92 (36%) said yes.

139 (55%) said no.

14 (6%) said they were not sure.

8 (3%) did not say.

I will update if this thread carries on.

Tis a miracle: my computer is in a box and yet here I am posting.

Coalition: I entirely understand the reasoning behind your "objective morality" post but I don't necessarily agree.

I suppose largely because it contains the assumption, as mine did, that more human happiness is a "good" thing and more human misery is a "bad" thing -- thus an absolute good is written into the whole utilitarian theme.

The other thing is that many who say they don't believe in an absolute good, still do, really.

Certain individual acts of murder, theft, crime, adultery and so on could lead to an increase in human happiness, without a doubt.

Your point is (I think?) that society has organised itself to deplore them because on the whole for society, crime, murder, adultery etc are evolutionarily undesirable.

But there seem to be few true utilitarians among non believers. Even just looking at mn.

I've got a bit bored half way through this post, does it show?

I believe that newborn babies are born with an innate sense. When they first attempt to 'hit' you at about 12 months old, they know it's wrong because they sit there wide-eyed with a cheeky grin waiting for the inevitable reaction in their parents.
CHildren have a fabulous sense of fair-play that most adults could learn from. They also have good ego-boundaries.
I believe most babies have the ability to remain morally sound if they're not corrupted by society around them. Unfortunately, society is corrupt and morally suspect and babies and children are also pre-determined to attempt to fit in with their tribe or culture. If their culture or parents are morally dubious, then the desire to conform is often greater than the desire to seek their own moral truth.
Not always, thought. SOmetimes the moral truth prevails, which is why martyrs and revolutionaries have existed.

sorry: an innate sense of right and wrong

than the desire to 'hold onto' their own moral truth (not seek their own moral truth- although perhaps we should all regularly revisit our beliefs and morals to seek out whether they have moved on or altered in line with new life experiences)

Good morning all, back for a bit more.

My point on the nature of ethics was that either it can be taken to be the summation of all human opinions or there is something external to human opinion regarding moral law.

I would hold that we all have specific acts that we would deem to be wrong. While we can modify general laws, e.g. don't kill, but euthanasia is OK in certain circumstances, there will always be a particular action that we believe to be irreducibly wrong. I would cite choosing to torture someone for your own pleasure and without their consent as one.

Now, if you do have a specific action you hold to be irreducibly wrong, would it still be wrong if an opinion poll said 51% of people thought it was OK? Or would you say that 51% of people were wrong? Given that many here (rightly) point out that a majority holding an opinion does not of itself validate that opinion I hope you would say the latter.

If you do think morality is just down to majority opinion in the community you could be tacitly approving all sorts of problems. For example, if child slavery was seen as normal within a given society would that make it OK? If within wartime Germany anti-Semitism gained majority approval would that make it moral to be anti-semitic? Of course it wouldn't!

So if the summation of human opinion is not enough to define whether given actions are right or wrong, and we want to hold that that a specific act is objectively, no matter what the prevailing mood of public opinion, then you have to acknowledge something outside human opinion.

Sakura - An innate sense of right and wrong != objective morality exists. Just that it is useful and burned into us.

PermenantVacation "For example, if child slavery was seen as normal within a given society would that make it OK? If within wartime Germany anti-Semitism gained majority approval would that make it moral to be anti-semitic?" Well clearly, WITHIN the moral frameworks of those societies those things are ok.

Our society strongly disagrees with those things, and we are able to apply outside pressure against those things, because currently our way or organising society has yielded better results.

The question one should be asking about an action rather than 'Is it right or wrong?' is 'does it make things better?'. Which immediately suggests the question, 'Better for whom?' Which is where things get messy. But messy is good. Certainty leads to us stopping asking the questions. And we should always ask questions.

My personal take on this, is that if we are trying to make a rational, secular morality, then one would need a rational, secular reason to treat groups of people differently or even oneself differently.

CRUELLY excised by the CLEARLY BIASED server from my last post:-

"Which is where things get messy. But messy is good. Certainty is the enemy of questioning - and we should never assume we've got to the final answer"

Answer to original question: yes, I am LDS (Mormon)

Answer to original question for me is YES! I think it's ultimately a choice you make between 'Is the world completely random?' or 'Is there some guiding force behind everything?' To me the latter seems more probable.

Uncertainty is where faith steps in for many people.

Thank you all for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law.

I have learned a great deal from this thread, and will try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination ... End of debate.

I do need some advice from you all, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

1. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

1. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

1. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

1. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

1. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

1. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

1. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you all have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Watch it, I'll start posting song lyrics if you're not carefull...

Lamplighter, my understanding is that a lot of the old testament was written to be specifically relevant for its time and involves rules regarding hygiene etc that are not relevant to the times we live in now (where we have clean water, proper sewerage systems and things!) As a Christian I see the old testament as being far less relevant to my life than the new testament, I see it more as a history of how things developed up until the point where Jesus came along. The sermon on the mount and beatitudes are the most important guidelines of any form of Christianity imo. Obviously I am giving a Christian's view though, others on here who are Jewish etc would look at it differently.

Thou shalt attribute thy stolen texts www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/susan/joke/laura.htm

Lamplighter...you rock!!! Thankyou all so much. It has been really very interesting.

PermanentVacation: But there have been societies where choosing to torture people from a certain class was perfectly acceptable if you were from another class. Whether you or I approve of torture is subjective - if some people think it;s OK to torture (like half the Bush government did) then that;s not a moral absolute, is it.
And don't forget how keen Christians have been on torture for heretics and unbelievers, both historically and, er, these days...

Freddy

It was only a joke.....

[head in hands]

Sorry lampy - have only read the last page and was just assuming you were one of those atheists that seem to come on here looking for a fight. On a serious note, Yes, I think it is definitely necessary to have your uncle stoned publicly, and his wife too for that matter.

Freddo

Bag of gravel and a handful of sharp stones for you then