Why do you believe in God?

[MohtasaUnique]

I believe in god because I believe that there's a purpose to humanity. I DON'T believe god is here, however, because my religion is deism, but I do believe he created all the necessary components for the universe to be created, wound it up, and let nature take its course.

 

[raziaex]

I believe in god because I believe that there's a purpose to humanity. I DON'T believe god is here, however, because my religion is deism, but I do believe he created all the necessary components for the universe to be created, wound it up, and let nature take its course.

So you're proposing that the existence of God constitutes a 'purpose' to humanity? Or; even better - that the lack of God assumes a lack of purpose???
Deism? You might as well become agnostic.
If you fail to see a purpose in your own life and the entirety of humanity without a God in place, then your life clearly must suck balls.

 

[malakadang]

You continue to further dodge the question I am aiming at you by making pointless comments like 'It's merely a fairy tale.' It's becoming increasingly evident that you in fact have not taken the time (like you have claimed) and studied the entirety of the Bible, so stop using its words in your argument.

Thanks.

Sigh, learn to put in a question mark.

John 6:54-55 "He who eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life: and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed."

1 Timothy 2:12 "But I permit not a woman to teach,, nor to have dominion over a man."

1 Samuel 15:3 "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."

Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind it is abomination."

Leviticus 20:9 "For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall surely be put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother, his blood shall be upon him."

Judges 21: Just read it and see what the 10 commandments mean.

Uggh, I do not want to quote more, ask me if you really want me to.
Want me next to quote bible contradictions, theres even more of them.

 

[MohtasaUnique]

So you're proposing that the existence of God constitutes a 'purpose' to humanity? Or; even better - that the lack of God assumes a lack of purpose???
Deism? You might as well become agnostic.
If you fail to see a purpose in your own life and the entirety of humanity without a God in place, then your life clearly must suck balls.

You're basing every counter argument to what I believe in on pure bias, assumptions and dimwitted, egotistical thought processes. Please do not attempt to debate until you're ready to cast aside your petty bias towards those who give weight to the existence of a higher power.

Just because I don't believe god intervenes today doesn't remotely mean I'm agnostic. It means I'm deist... because that's the religious belief of deism.... I have no problem committing to anything in life, and I believe in the existence of a higher power. The fact that you suggest that I should commit to fully believing in god in order for my religious views to have any meaning contradicts your statement about how it would "suck balls" to have a life whose purpose comes from religion. Make up your mind bro.

I don't fail to see purpose in life. It's my belief that religion gives over 3-4 billion people purpose in life. That also doesn't mean that it's the sole purpose of life. Survival, scientific advancement, etc. are the purpose of many lives.

Lastly, your use of punctuation is extremely annoying. I'm also going to have to ask you to take time to learn the proper uses of semi-colons, commas and hyphens before you use them.

 

[z Revs]

Sigh, learn to put in a question mark.

John 6:54-55 "He who eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life: and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed."

1 Timothy 2:12 "But I permit not a woman to teach,, nor to have dominion over a man."

1 Samuel 15:3 "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."

Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind it is abomination."

Leviticus 20:9 "For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall surely be put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother, his blood shall be upon him."

Judges 21: Just read it and see what the 10 commandments mean.

Uggh, I do not want to quote more, ask me if you really want me to.
Want me next to quote bible contradictions, theres even more of them.

Going into Google and typing 'Controversial Bible verses' does not constitute actually studying the verses in their entirety, in their context, the culture the books is focused on, the time period of the book, the writer of the book, and even how the book relates to the entire bible. You misunderstand what I mean when I say 'study.'

 

[raziaex]

Going into Google and typing 'Controversial Bible verses' does not constitute actually studying the verses in their entirety, in their context, the culture the books is focused on, the time period of the book, the writer of the book, and even how the book relates to the entire bible. You misunderstand what I mean when I say 'study.'

In this situation; it does not matter whether he misunderstood your definition of 'study' or not. Placed simply, he completely obliterated your previous argument. He provided sufficient evidence from the scripture to account for his own. Done and done. Therefore you missed his point; not the other way around.

 

[malakadang]

Going into Google and typing 'Controversial Bible verses' does not constitute actually studying the verses in their entirety, in their context, the culture the books is focused on, the time period of the book, the writer of the book, and even how the book relates to the entire bible. You misunderstand what I mean when I say 'study.'

Please justify what all those quotes mean, your holy book preaches them so surely if you've studied them more than me, then you can portray your understanding of them rather than rambling on about beliefs you don't even know.

 

[z Revs]

In this situation; it does not matter whether he misunderstood your definition of 'study' or not. Placed simply, he completely obliterated your previous argument. He provided sufficient evidence from the scripture to account for his own. Done and done. Therefore you missed his point; not the other way around.

My argument is the misuse of the scripture to validate his arguments, not anything else other than that. That being said, he actually did not provide sufficient evidence by just posting verses that he googled. Also, I've been reading your posts and your demeanor, to say the least, is very insulting. Please leave SFA until you can have discussions without getting worked up over someone else's opinions and beliefs, no matter how radical they are compared to yours. This is a place for mature discussion.

Please justify what all those quotes mean, your holy book preaches them so surely if you've studied them more than me, then you can portray your understanding of them rather than rambling on about beliefs you don't even know.

I'm sorry, I just don't understand how if you've done more than just read the verse itself how you believe them to be so controversial. Its as though you don't take into consideration the time period it was written, countless translations, the people it was aimed it when it was said by God, and the actual context of the verse. Take Deuteronomy for example; the first 14 verses of chapter 28 are the promises of God. Now a lot of people find the verse "And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters, which the LORD thy God hath given thee, in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee:" to be controversial. IF you read the verse, it is not God's will that man eat of his own flesh, but rather a curse, the will of Satan. Would you assume that if you read just that verse? Probably not.

To be honest, I'm tired of babbling on about misuse of scripture, we could go back and forth arguing about this for years with no avail. All I'm saying is, the Bible is a complicated text, and too often do people quote, out of context, individual verses that can mislead the true intentions of said verse.

 

[Cleavage]

I dont believe in god, but i believe that having something to look up too and look at for answers it good, whether it be god or a doughnut.

 

[Lordhooters]

I have cleaned up the majority of your filth, if I come back and see that you two are back on this thread making it a personal hate war, infractions will be dealt accordingly.

This forum is for debate, not for insulting each other.

 

[Carcinomati]

I believe that religion was created due to lack of understanding of how things worked, so the first humans attributed unexplainable phenomenon to mythical Gods.

 

[malakadang]

I'm sorry, I just don't understand how if you've done more than just read the verse itself how you believe them to be so controversial. Its as though you don't take into consideration the time period it was written, countless translations, the people it was aimed it when it was said by God, and the actual context of the verse. Take Deuteronomy for example; the first 14 verses of chapter 28 are the promises of God. Now a lot of people find the verse "And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters, which the LORD thy God hath given thee, in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee:" to be controversial. IF you read the verse, it is not God's will that man eat of his own flesh, but rather a curse, the will of Satan. Would you assume that if you read just that verse? Probably not.

To be honest, I'm tired of babbling on about misuse of scripture, we could go back and forth arguing about this for years with no avail. All I'm saying is, the Bible is a complicated text, and too often do people quote, out of context, individual verses that can mislead the true intentions of said verse.

If the bible is not meant for our time then why do your... priests preach it as the holy book?
The fact of the matter is if priests quote from the bible with regard to 'good' quotes then they should adhere to all the bad quotes as well. You cannot nitpick.

Your only argument is that I'm taking things out of their original context. Well fine, but your priests, your bishop, your pope quotes verses from the bible and takes it out of context as well.
The bible is not a very complicated text at all.
I'm getting a bit tired of Christians preaching to everyone their God, and then when someone debates with them they'll say o nono your taking this in the wrong context.
"Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." How is this not the context for genocide? Someone has done bad to your presumably, and in return you obliterate their race of people. If I'm taking that the wrong way then what is the right way to take the extermination of a race?

 

[Joker91]

If the bible is not meant for our time then why do your... priests preach it as the holy book?
The fact of the matter is if priests quote from the bible with regard to 'good' quotes then they should adhere to all the bad quotes as well. You cannot nitpick.

Your only argument is that I'm taking things out of their original context. Well fine, but your priests, your bishop, your pope quotes verses from the bible and takes it out of context as well.
The bible is not a very complicated text at all.
I'm getting a bit tired of Christians preaching to everyone their God, and then when someone debates with them they'll say o nono your taking this in the wrong context.
"Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." How is this not the context for genocide? Someone has done bad to your presumably, and in return you obliterate their race of people. If I'm taking that the wrong way then what is the right way to take the extermination of a race?

The archaic language had different meanings in the past, and taking the quotes out of context only further butchers the true and intended meaning.

This goes for the vast majority, if not all, of the "contradictions" Atheists love to point out as well. Denying that the Bible is a complicated read is ignorant, and only proves that you didn't read or didn't care to actually learn and understand it yourself.

Like the common false statement that the Bible says the world is flat. Nowhere in the Bible is the world stated as flat. Certain regions geographically may be stated as such, but not Earth. In fact, the Bible actually states the world is a sphere suspended in space, with day and night occurring simultaneously.

Any contradiction you point out can likely be smashed and tossed aside by someone with true understanding of the Bible.


As for God being omnipotent and the fact that there is evil on Earth, disproving his existence, this is also completely untrue. God admitted himself that this universe was good, but not perfect. It was designed to be temporary, and will be replaced with a perfect universe. Even science tells us the universe was designed to be temporary.

 

[raziaex]

The archaic language had different meanings in the past, and taking the quotes out of context only further butchers the true and intended meaning.

This goes for the vast majority, if not all, of the "contradictions" Atheists love to point out as well. Denying that the Bible is a complicated read is ignorant, and only proves that you didn't read or didn't care to actually learn and understand it yourself.

Like the common false statement that the Bible says the world is flat. Nowhere in the Bible is the world stated as flat. Certain regions geographically may be stated as such, but not Earth. In fact, the Bible actually states the world is a sphere suspended in space, with day and night occurring simultaneously.

Any contradiction you point out can likely be smashed and tossed aside by someone with true understanding of the bible.


As for God being omnipotent and the fact that their is evil on Earth disproving his existence, this is also completely untrue. God admitted himself that this universe was good, but not perfect. It was designed to be temporary, and will be replaced with a perfect universe. Even science tells us the universe was designed to be temporary.

The language is archaic - we do accept that. But to say that our evidence for contradiction and other fallacies is based on quotations taken out of context without providing your 'correct' interpretation is useless.
If you think we've taken something out of context; please show us how we have done so. Also inform us of what your 'true' meaning is.
The Bible NEVER claims that the world is a 'sphere suspended in space'. Day and night occurring simultaneously? Please refer to Genesis (Opening few verses).
As for your final remark; God is 'supposed' to be omnipotent, omniscient, all powerful, and best of all - perfect. Again, how can such a being create flaws?
Please, again, in which passage have you noted that the universe was designed to be temporary? We would like to hear some substantiation on this matter. Even more so, I would personally like to hear how you came to the conclusion that science 'tells us that the universe was designed to be temporary'.
For one; science completely obliterates the 'design' element of the universe (at present). Also, science; in no shape or form, has hinted that our universe is temporary. There are theories of course, pertaining to a temporal universe - but how do you say that this is proof of 'design' and 'creation'? Such logic is broken and confused.
Oh and a side note: God never actually refers to his created world as a 'universe' in a scientific context. I thought you understood the archaic constructs that the scriptures utilized. I guess not.

 

[Alteranz]

Every single day I question what existence actually is. If life is just a phenomenon then how did it come to be... Life out of nothing is so unfathomable. I cannot comprehend the concept of infinity or a time when there was nothing, which is why I never bash religious people nor atheists...
Everyone is entitled to their beliefs because all people are doing is trying to piece together the puzzle in their own way.

 

[raziaex]

Every single day I question what existence actually is. If life is just a phenomenon then how did it come to be... Life out of nothing is so unfathomable. I cannot comprehend the concept of infinity or a time when there was nothing, which is why I never bash religious people nor atheists...
Everyone is entitled to their beliefs because all people are doing is trying to piece together the puzzle in their own way.

(Nice 4000th Post xD)
It's a good way of thinking I guess; but there is also the idea that we as humans should try to understand through evidence, logic, and reasoning.
To myself; all religions do is simply give up. They cannot find a logical solution to a problem - so what do they do?
'God did it'
This differs from the scientific standpoint which is to slowly and gradually piece the puzzle together from scratch; drawing different building blocks from observations and evidence gathered from dedicated research and experimentation. Science is something that doesn't give up. It accepts where it is wrong; and finds a new method to understanding. It never assumes that it is correct; and constantly challenges it's own current theories and extends them with newer knowledge.
Does any religion in the world accept that they are ever incorrect about their own scriptures? They simply cannot. Why? Because scripture is the foundation of religion (in most cases). By accepting that 'the word of God' is flawed, their confidence in their own religion becomes shaky.
Does any religion test it's own values and beliefs? No. If they had, they would have inevitable used something known as logic; which is illogical for them to do so, under their own religious premises.
Has religion developed their ways of thinking and contributed further than they have thousands of years ago? No. They stopped at that point. Nothing further has been achieved since.

 

[Joker91]

The language is archaic - we do accept that. But to say that our evidence for contradiction and other fallacies is based on quotations taken out of context without providing your 'correct' interpretation is useless.
If you think we've taken something out of context; please show us how we have done so. Also inform us of what your 'true' meaning is.
The Bible NEVER claims that the world is a 'sphere suspended in space'. Day and night occurring simultaneously? Please refer to Genesis (Opening few verses).
As for your final remark; God is 'supposed' to be omnipotent, omniscient, all powerful, and best of all - perfect. Again, how can such a being create flaws?
Please, again, in which passage have you noted that the universe was designed to be temporary? We would like to hear some substantiation on this matter. Even more so, I would personally like to hear how you came to the conclusion that science 'tells us that the universe was designed to be temporary'.
For one; science completely obliterates the 'design' element of the universe (at present). Also, science; in no shape or form, has hinted that our universe is temporary. There are theories of course, pertaining to a temporal universe - but how do you say that this is proof of 'design' and 'creation'? Such logic is broken and confused.
Oh and a side note: God never actually refers to his created world as a 'universe' in a scientific context. I thought you understood the archaic constructs that the scriptures utilized. I guess not.

Earth is a sphere (Hebrew for circle could also be translated as sphere):

Isaiah 40:22
It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,

And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,

Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain

And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.


Earth is suspended in space:

Job 26:7
He stretches out the north over empty space

And hangs the earth on nothing


Day and night occurring simultaneously:

Luke 17:34-35
I tell you, on that night there will be two in one bed; one will be taken and the other will be left. There will be two women grinding at the same place; one will be taken and the other will be left.


God says the Earth and Heavens were designed to be temporary:

Isaiah 65:17
For behold, I create anew heavens and a new earth;

And the former things will not be remembered or come to mind.


Science dictates the universe is temporary. I don't care to explain it all at the moment. Read up on the second law of thermodynamics.


Also, the fact that God is omnipotent has fuck all to do with why the world is not perfect. God created humans to have a personal relationship with them, which is only possible if the being had FREE WILL. And he did with Adam and Eve, but they then sinned.

Oh and a side note: God never actually refers to his created world as a 'universe' in a scientific context. I thought you understood the archaic constructs that the scriptures utilized. I guess not.

Forgive me for wording one thing wrongly. Seems you're just upset I shot you argument to shit.

 

[raziaex]

'Earth is a sphere (Hebrew for circle could also be translated as sphere):

Isaiah 40:22
It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,'

Hebrew for circle 'could' be translated as sphere. But it was translated in the bible by the editors as simply 'circle'; and not 'sphere'. Ever wondered why?

Earth is suspended in space:

Job 26:7
He stretches out the north over empty space

And hangs the earth on nothing

You've taken the term 'space' out of context as well.
If you read Genesis appropriately; you would find that this space is the 'nothing' that God had before creating 'Everything'. It is a simply a figure of speech. This also serves to prove your hypocrisy.

'Luke 17:34-35
I tell you, on that night there will be two in one bed; one will be taken and the other will be left. There will be two women grinding at the same place; one will be taken and the other will be left.'

lol?????
how does this prove that night and day occur simultaneously again?

Isaiah 65:17
For behold, I create anew heavens and a new earth;

And the former things will not be remembered or come to mind.

again, lol??? how does this prove that the earth (or universe) is temporary, by biblical means?
Look up the definitions of 'anew' and 'former' if you would like. I believe former refers to the past, not future.

Science dictates the world is temporary. I don't care to explain it all at the moment. Read up on the second law of thermodynamics.

Sorry bro, but at this moment in time, the second law completely contradicts your argument. if you're pertaining to heat death entropic theory; where the universe will ultimately decay due to heat loss as ineffective dynamic energy transfer/exchange, then you are wrong. That does not signify that the universe is temporary - in fact, it does not even state the the universe will END at all.
Your last statement is a blatant contradiction.
Look up 'omnipotent' before you make such a claim.

 

[malakadang]

The archaic language had different meanings in the past, and taking the quotes out of context only further butchers the true and intended meaning.

This goes for the vast majority, if not all, of the "contradictions" Atheists love to point out as well. Denying that the Bible is a complicated read is ignorant, and only proves that you didn't read or didn't care to actually learn and understand it yourself.

Like the common false statement that the Bible says the world is flat. Nowhere in the Bible is the world stated as flat. Certain regions geographically may be stated as such, but not Earth. In fact, the Bible actually states the world is a sphere suspended in space, with day and night occurring simultaneously.

Any contradiction you point out can likely be smashed and tossed aside by someone with true understanding of the Bible.


As for God being omnipotent and the fact that there is evil on Earth, disproving his existence, this is also completely untrue. God admitted himself that this universe was good, but not perfect. It was designed to be temporary, and will be replaced with a perfect universe. Even science tells us the universe was designed to be temporary.

You still you haven't given meaning to my quote, I don't know how you can take the extermination of a race out of context.

Now that we've justified how flawed and controversial the bible is, why do you believe in God?
The bible?
Other people believe in it?



Just tell me why, the very reason/s you believe in it.

 

[Joker91]

I didn't give up, I just refuse to argue back and forth when I can't even get you to budge the tiniest bit and allow those of us who do believe to get through to you. You're right, there is no real scientific evidence of God, but there is also no scientific evidence proving his existence is impossible. Your beliefs cause you to translate the bible in ways believers do not, and there is no way to make you view it as we do.