Kevin's Watch

I know I will probibly get shunned for this topic but here goes. I don't believe in god and there is to much preeching going on in this country. Allot more of the bible has been disproved then proved. Allot of the questions you ask religous poeple are dodged and never answered right. They wont accept the facts and they are really closed minded. So here is the topic. If you don't have complete faith in god here is the place to ask questions and if someone thinks they can answer it they can try.

Since you said lower case "god," I probably should've voted yes, but in keeping with how I usually answer this question, I took no.

"The eye with which I see God is the same eye with which God sees me."
- Mesiter Eckhart

I believe that the worst thing we can do is to hold the idea of ourselves as something separate from our surroundings, our universe, God, if you will.

I use God in lowercase in stuff I write whenever a character is using it as a meaningless exclamation, such as: "oh god, what now?" Plus, I know L. Ron Hubbard did it at least once in Battlefield Earth.

Oh yeah, and I voted no.

Syl brings up an good point. Since "God" is normally considered the (or at least a) proper name of the Christian god, it should be capitalized, just as Odin is. You did not capitalize god, so I would think you meant "Do you believe any god exists?" But then you discuss only the God of the Bible. Which are you asking?

And if you mean the God of the Bible, I'm afraid I'm going to be a pita, and ask you to be more specific. I don't know how anyone could possibly take every word of the Bible literally, so I completely understand why any number of Christians have so many different beliefs. I do not believe there is any possibility that the God Fred Phelps believes in exists, but I don't rule out the possibility of Furls Fire's.

Are you an agnostic, then, Fist? If you don't rule out the possibility of God existing, then you're not an atheist. *gasp!*

No, I'm not an atheist. I see things that suggest the existence of a creator, but nothing concrete, and I can also see it all happening without one. But I call myself a practical atheist. Meaning, since, even if there is a creator, I don't have reason to believe it wants/demands/hopes anything specific for or from us, nothing I do is done with any such wants/demands/hopes in mind. For all practical purposes, purposes of daily living, I may as well be an atheist. If you follow my meaning.

I couldn't answer, as you were very dualistic and gave only two possible answers, yes or no. To tell you the honest truth, I just don't know. Part of me wants to believe in God, or at least his good points. The rest rejects the kind of God that I was taught about during my teenage years. It's a tough situation.

I do, however, definately believe in spiritual things. I think there is more to us than just chemicals and meat. That's just me though.

Sum sui generis
Vs

You named this thread, "Can we tell the truth". Well, when it comes to God, the "truth" you speak of comes from "faith". Belief in God comes from a person's inner soul, heart. There is no way to prove God. No way to instill in someone a belief they simply don't believe.

The Bible is a book of interpretation, metaphor. It comes from such an ancient text that most of it has been miss translated over the 2000 years it has been in existence. Many have bent it to suit their own designs, such as Phelps, who uses God's Word to promote hate and violence. If you simply use the Bible to prove or disprove God's existence, you will fall short both ways. Instead, use it as it was meant to be used...a history book depicting the lives of those who believed in God. A history book depicting the life of Jesus Christ and His sacrifice. But, remember, that history may not be "literal". The Bible has been written and re-written more times than can be counted. The Bible can't make you believe or disbelieve, it can't prove anything. That belief lives or lives not inside you. And no one can make another believe, no one can make another possess faith, no one can put God in someone's heart.

In my own heart, I believe with all that is me, that there is a God, and that He sent His Son to live as a man 2000 years ago. And that Jesus sacrificed Himself for us. Whether you believe that or not is not for me to decide. As it is not for you to decide that I should not believe as I do. This "truth" you seek? You will not find it anywhere but in your own heart.

People who overanalyze the Bible and point out contradictions and hold it up against the light of history forget the most important aspect of the Bible:

The teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. No other book preserves them as well.

I would agree with Furls, in that nothing can be proven one way or the other, and it all comes down to personal belief and faith. I do know that people such as the Rev. Phelps (the God Hates Gays person) gives Christians as much of a black eye as extremist terrorists do for Muslims (a religion which also teaches love and peace).
I don't have a problem with God so much as I have a problem with some of those who clain to follow him -- extremists of all sorts who believe that they can kill, bomb, and emotionally terrorize people (such as Phelps does) in the name of God.

Sheol,

just a technicality but...

You state you don't believe in god (God) which is as much a matter of faith as stating that you belive in god as neither can be proven. IMHO, this stance is somewhat hypocritical as both rely equally on faith albeit in two diametrically opposed ideas. Agnosticism is a more intellectually honest philosophy as it does not rely on faith and leaves the individual with the ability to change their mind if god is ever conclusively proven or disproven. Just my two cents.

BTW, I believe in God.

I don't remember saying anything hypocritical. I said I don't believe in god and I said that more of the bible has been disproved then proved. I don't see how you got that. Beacause the existancy of a god has not been proven or disproven does not contradict my statement at all.

I think what Brinn was trying to say was this:

If you're an atheist (like me), it takes a measure of faith, because there’s no way of knowing if there isn’t a God. Christianity is reverse coin: it also takes faith, just like atheism, because there is no proof that there is a God. Becoming an agnostic is the only logical stance, because the truth is, we don’t know if there is or isn’t. So, again, atheism takes a leap of faith; you have to believe that there is no God, just as a Christian believes there is. They’re quite the same.

So, when an atheist starts talking about how "unproven" the existence of God is, then I find that hypocritical. Why? Simply because the atheist is believing in something just as unproven.

Hummm, I not sure about this...
I found that MANY religions around the world follow comon threads in their beliefs.
(I would guess at least 70% of the ones that I were exposed to.)
For example:
Most follow a "Creator" or God.
Most believe that humans were put on Earth to serve or "spread the will/word" of this "Supreme Being".
A lot of Events/Miracles share simularities.
(Sometimes, names even sound almost alike!)
Maybe there is a God.
He is just known as a different name in different places.
I respect the decissions of those who believe in God.
(Rha, Buddah, a Navajo sun God, E.T., or Whomever)
Some believe that Humans may had originated on another planet
and migrated to Earth. (Marooned, stranded, exiled to, ...whatever)
It is their belief.

There are some folks, like in this topic,
whom just does not think that there is a god.
It can be hard to believe when there are so much hate, violence, war,
poverty, famine, disease, corruption, destruction, ...the list goes on.
Why doesn't God (If there is one) intervene and stop some of this crap
that is destroying His beautiful creations?
I can understand why some say God is dead, or there is no God.
This is no ABSOLUTE proof that God DOES exist,
but there is no ABSOLUTE proof that God does NOT exist.
(Basically what LF already said)
I respect those dessicions. It is their belief.

However, I voted "yes", because I personally DO believe that there is a God.
(Too many religions have too many common stories to just be a coincidence.)
How much influence He has over me may be another thing, though.
I won't get on a soap-box and try to pursuade others into believing what
I believe, or the "One/True/Only/Right" ways. I also don't think that God
can "oversee" everything that happens. (Like Santa Clause, right?)
You will not hear me drilling into my children's heads
the Good of Heaven and the Evil of Hell.
(Truth, Kindness, Hate, and Morals are some items that I have talked to my kids about)
It is MY belief, so please respect MY decission.

Furls Fire wrote:The Bible is a book of interpretation, metaphor. It comes from such an ancient text that most of it has been miss translated over the 2000 years it has been in existence. Many have bent it to suit their own designs, such as Phelps, who uses God's Word to promote hate and violence. If you simply use the Bible to prove or disprove God's existence, you will fall short both ways. Instead, use it as it was meant to be used...a history book depicting the lives of those who believed in God.

I, uh, have a couple quotes for this. The first is from a guy I used to email with a lot:

There are errors about natural processes, historical inaccuracies, and contradictions galore! What I am committed to is taking the Bible seriously. Not as a basic text on physical science, biology or even history, but as the faithful attempt by many authors to tell the story of God's relationship to people. It tells me a great deal about who God is, and in the process I learn about who I am as well.

This next one is from Eknath Easwaran, who has translations of, among other things, the Upanishads:

The Upanishads are not systematic philosophy; they are more like ecstatic slide shows of mystical experience - vivid, disjointed, stamped with the power of direct personal encounter with the divine. If they seem to embrace contradictions, that is because they do not try to smooth over the seams of these experiences. They simply set down what the rishis saw, viewing the ultimate reality from different levels of spiritual awareness, like snapshots of the same object from different angles: now seeing God as utterly transcendent, for example, now seeing God as immanent as well. These differences are not important, and the Upanishads agree on their central ideas: …

cheval wrote:I found that MANY religions around the world follow comon threads in their beliefs.

I've found the same thing. I've found taoism in most of them.

cheval wrote:It is MY belief, so please respect MY decission.

'k

It can be hard to believe when there are so much hate, violence, war,
poverty, famine, disease, corruption, destruction, ...the list goes on.
Why doesn't God (If there is one) intervene and stop some of this crap
that is destroying His beautiful creations?
I can understand why some say God is dead, or there is no God.
This is no ABSOLUTE proof that God DOES exist,
but there is no ABSOLUTE proof that God does NOT exist.

I, personally, do not believe in any form of supreme being. My lack of belief is... complete. Many reasons are often given for why some people doubt the existence of a god, or reasons why they decide one does not exist - for me, I've never realy felt any need to think on those things. I, personally, have never felt a reason to consider the existence of a supreme being to be possible.
I have difficulty comprehending how some people can have such strong convictions about thier faith, and no doubt whatsoever that what they believe is right, because I don't see any reason to have these beliefs.

...

LF,

You're correct in your interpretation of my statement.

Sheol,
No offense was intended...You're entitled to your beliefs (or non-belief) just as much as any other. I was just attempting to point out that from a purely logical standpoint Athiesm is as much of a religion as Christianity, Judaism or any other reliigions that worship a divine creator.

Again, I will state that Agnosticism is the stronghold of the logician as you cannot conclusively prove a negative or non-existence from lack of positive evidence.

I am an atheist, but I for a long time searched for faith and still wish I could have that. What I do believe is that if everyone lived by the teachings of Jesus, truly, lived the spirit of that law (lore?), rather than the letter of it, the world would be a greater, more peaceful and loving place for everyone. This would also be the case if we properly tried to follow the eight-fold path or felt the spirit in the Koran, to name only two. I have the utmost respect for those that endeavour to do so. I try to love everyone. I am a humanist.

Fist and Faith wrote:

Furls Fire wrote:The Bible is a book of interpretation, metaphor. It comes from such an ancient text that most of it has been miss translated over the 2000 years it has been in existence. Many have bent it to suit their own designs, such as Phelps, who uses God's Word to promote hate and violence. If you simply use the Bible to prove or disprove God's existence, you will fall short both ways. Instead, use it as it was meant to be used...a history book depicting the lives of those who believed in God.

I, uh, have a couple quotes for this. The first is from a guy I used to email with a lot:

There are errors about natural processes, historical inaccuracies, and contradictions galore! What I am committed to is taking the Bible seriously. Not as a basic text on physical science, biology or even history, but as the faithful attempt by many authors to tell the story of God's relationship to people. It tells me a great deal about who God is, and in the process I learn about who I am as well.

Is this the same person you invited to Stephen's thread? I would love to talk with him as well. He said what I tried to say so much better than I did.

edinburghemma wrote:I am an atheist, but I for a long time searched for faith and still wish I could have that. What I do believe is that if everyone lived by the teachings of Jesus, truly, lived the spirit of that law (lore?), rather than the letter of it, the world would be a greater, more peaceful and loving place for everyone. This would also be the case if we properly tried to follow the eight-fold path or felt the spirit in the Koran, to name only two. I have the utmost respect for those that endeavour to do so. I try to love everyone. I am a humanist.

On this act of "searching for faith", may I ask where such a search took place? If you were looking for it outside of your own inner soul, then it is no wonder you couldn't find it. It comes from within, it comes the heart. There is no "finding" it anywhere else. Faith isn't something that is instilled by the masses, or a preacher, or a book. It comes from God Himself, all that is required is an opening of your heart to recieve it from Him. And, from what I just read of your short post, I believe it is there.

Sometimes, a person refuses his or her belief or faith simply because the logical mind rejects such feelings on the basis of no proof. "How could God create a world in 7 days?" "Why does God allow suffering in His world" "Why does He not speak directly to His children as He once did?" "Why why why;" "How how how;" So many unanswerables, so many contridictions, so many why's and how's and what's and who's. It is no wonder people lose faith or never "find" it to begin with. But those that do find it within themselves have no need for any of those answers. My brother used to say..."Why ask? No answer will come. I just accept the Will of the Father and live by the teachings of His Son. The answers will come after, if they are even needed at all by then..."

I invite you Emma, and anyone else, to read the thread I set up in my brother's memory in the Hall of Gifts. It is at the very top. Perhaps his writings will help you in your inner search for faith.

Thank you Furls, I shall do that now.