forums

Off-Topic Does God actually exist?

Advertisement
Advertisement
Suhrthing said:
Why you so mad all the time?
Click to expand...

Love all the time!!


1658023941559.jpeg
 
No, and I'm not sure that God/religion has had a net positive effect on humanity. Maybe for the individual person but once it becomes 'people' it's a problem.
 
Billy D Williams said:
Funny thing is I got to church on a semi-frequent basis, was a church youth speaker, but I never understood why people spoke so dedicatedly to being a believer and not being more questioning about the Bible and the many things that can easily be proven wrong. I guess you can say I'm not a believer. in fact I hate being in the company of a bunch of holy people.
Click to expand...
Depends on how push the believers are. I love the idea that people can believe what they want, I just don’t like when the push it on me as facts.
 
Advertisement
I grew up pretty "religious", but was turned off by what I realized later was hypocrisy and power jockeying in mainstream denominationalism. I majored in biology, so was heavily introduced to the material (non-spiritual) cosmology of the universe, and was transitioning to an agnostic world-view. My background, however, was software coding (shout-out to the Testing Center and the good times had by all in the Ungar building). Anyway, sitting in Cell Biology and Human Embryology I came to the personal conclusion that our DNA represents an overwhelmingly complex coding algorithm that try as hard as I might, I could not assign to non-sentient entropy.
.
Long story short (sort-of), I've spent the ensuing years in the spiritual journey of finding and more clearly understanding my Programmer. I lost my religion, ditched my churchianity, and became a follower of the Way (Acts 9:2, not the "cult").
 
N25.45W81.21 said:
I grew up pretty "religious", but was turned off by what I realized later was hypocrisy and power jockeying in mainstream denominationalism. I majored in biology, so was heavily introduced to the material (non-spiritual) cosmology of the universe, and was transitioning to an agnostic world-view. My background, however, was software coding (shout-out to the Testing Center and the good times had by all in the Ungar building). Anyway, sitting in Cell Biology and Human Embryology I came to the personal conclusion that our DNA represents an overwhelmingly complex coding algorithm that try as hard as I might, I could not assign to non-sentient entropy.
.
Long story short (sort-of), I've spent the ensuing years in the spiritual journey of finding and more clearly understanding my Programmer. I lost my religion, ditched my churchianity, and became a follower of the Way (Acts 9:2, not the "cult").
Click to expand...
The astronomical odds are quite stunning. I'm of the belief that man lacks even a modicum of intuition to make any concrete sense of the world we inhabit.
 
Advertisement
MovingZen said:
No, and I'm not sure that God/religion has had a net positive effect on humanity. Maybe for the individual person but once it becomes 'people' it's a problem.
Click to expand...

You should probably read up a little more on Christianity’s contributions to the rise of western culture. Rodney Stark’s “Victory Of Reason” is a good read on this topic if interested. It is well established all our humanitarian notions of charity, brotherhood, care for the poor and disabled, etc. had a Christian basis at one time that now has been largely discarded. But the basis is still undeniable.

And the idea of individual rights and equality under law that the framers believed in derived from their beliefs in a creator. Having a transcendent source of the law that can judge rulers and subjects alike is important in this view and led to the idea of our inalienable rights and protections of those rights that we all depend on in this country.

If you can’t see a net positive (I certainly get the corruption and abuses) in that then it’s probably hopeless to convince you otherwise. Look at it this way... you are essentially making a moral judgement implicit in your statement about religion being a “people problem” or to make any judgment concerning corruption and abuses of any religion. Without a transcendent source of moral values like God what makes your moral judgment any better or worse than anyone else’s? We are each wired and conditioned to believe in our own moral values and worth in God’s absence.
 
N25.45W81.21 said:
I grew up pretty "religious", but was turned off by what I realized later was hypocrisy and power jockeying in mainstream denominationalism. I majored in biology, so was heavily introduced to the material (non-spiritual) cosmology of the universe, and was transitioning to an agnostic world-view. My background, however, was software coding (shout-out to the Testing Center and the good times had by all in the Ungar building). Anyway, sitting in Cell Biology and Human Embryology I came to the personal conclusion that our DNA represents an overwhelmingly complex coding algorithm that try as hard as I might, I could not assign to non-sentient entropy.
.
Long story short (sort-of), I've spent the ensuing years in the spiritual journey of finding and more clearly understanding my Programmer. I lost my religion, ditched my churchianity, and became a follower of the Way (Acts 9:2, not the "cult").
Click to expand...
^This is interesting. Post more.
 
Advertisement
Salt said:
You should probably read up a little more on Christianity’s contributions to the rise of western culture. Rodney Stark’s “Victory Of Reason” is a good read on this topic if interested. It is well established all our humanitarian notions of charity, brotherhood, care for the poor and disabled, etc. had a Christian basis at one time that now has been largely discarded. But the basis is still undeniable.
Click to expand...
Those things were around before Christianity and even exist in other religions. imo Christianity can't take credit for humanitarian notions. Those notions are basic, even animals have them.
Salt said:
And the idea of individual rights and equality under law that the framers believed in derived from their beliefs in a creator. Having a transcendent source of the law that can judge rulers and subjects alike is important in this view and led to the idea of our inalienable rights and protections of those rights that we all depend on in this country.
Click to expand...
Still can't give religion credit for stating what should be obvious. And if we're being fair, our framers idea of rights and equality were still off. And if we're really being fair, religion can NEVER make the claim to equality under law because they still don't believe in it. The framers did know enough to try to keep religion out of government or law but imo they didn't go far enough in those protections. Non religious people still have to fight for protection from religious beliefs.
Salt said:
If you can’t see a net positive (I certainly get the corruption and abuses) in that then it’s probably hopeless to convince you otherwise. Look at it this way... you are essentially making a moral judgement implicit in your statement about religion being a “people problem” or to make any judgment concerning corruption and abuses of any religion. Without a transcendent source of moral values like God what makes your moral judgment any better or worse than anyone else’s? We are each wired and conditioned to believe in our own moral values and worth in God’s absence.
Click to expand...
It is pretty hopeless.. I doubt you can come up with enough examples of good that outweighs the bad. From Rome, probably until people get over it, people will be killing others in the name of their religion or God. People will still try to tell others how to live based on their religion and their God. People will still make laws to force others to conform to their religious beliefs. I don't make a judgement of religious people's morals, mine are very close just without the inducement. I might crack on the hypocrisy of spewing morals at others while breaking them regularly. But, I don't believe core morals came from religions.

All these things predate religions, exist concurrently and separately, and will exist with humanity throughout time even if religion doesn't. I'm sure a good argument could be made that morals and humanitarian notions are more prevalent thanks to religions but those same morals and notions are constantly ignored under the same religious banners with devastating affect. When it's good, sure it's good, but when it's bad, it's really ******* bad. Is your belief in God or your faith what makes you a good person? Or is that just who you are? You either have the core morals or you don't. If you can understand my opinion that these things would exist anyway, you maybe can see why I believe the net effect is a negative.
 
MovingZen said:
Those things were around before Christianity and even exist in other religions. imo Christianity can't take credit for humanitarian notions. Those notions are basic, even animals have them.
Click to expand...
I beg to differ. Christianity actually elevated the Judaic ethical system from actions to thoughts. Even if you are thinking about adultery it is no better than acting on it. You also had harder sayings such as "bless those who persecute you", and "love your enemies". I would like to see other ethical systems that teach similar ideas. Christianity actually raised the bar which was intent to show more how far we are from holiness and in need of redemption from God.

You may need to be more specific with animals since humans do the observations and recording of these behaviors, there is the possibility of anthropomorphizing that happens. I do know the zebra will not do a hunger strike to protest the treatment of the elephant at the zoo and animals are known to eat their young. I would proceed with caution comparing humans to animals in regards to ethical behavior. There is a saying that "nature is red in tooth and claw". There is some validity to that.

MovingZen said:
Still can't give religion credit for stating what should be obvious. And if we're being fair, our framers idea of rights and equality were still off. And if we're really being fair, religion can NEVER make the claim to equality under law because they still don't believe in it. The framers did know enough to try to keep religion out of government or law but imo they didn't go far enough in those protections. Non religious people still have to fight for protection from religious beliefs.
Click to expand...
Maybe I did not articulate my point clearly enough. I am not saying that religion is necessary for the idea of equal rights and such. But you at very least need a theistic framework. Under atheism, individual rights are just a mental construct with no actual objective source outside of it. Might makes right and that is all there is to it. Benevolence and aggression are just personal preferences, not objective moral attributes. With no objective moral standards we also can't measure moral progress. Chattel slavery was bad back in the day and still is. We can make the argument that the situation has improved, not merely changed. Without objective moral standards, at best we can say morals change but whether it is for the good or bad is just conditional to the time and place.

MovingZen said:
It is pretty hopeless.. I doubt you can come up with enough examples of good that outweighs the bad. From Rome, probably until people get over it, people will be killing others in the name of their religion or God. People will still try to tell others how to live based on their religion and their God. People will still make laws to force others to conform to their religious beliefs. I don't make a judgement of religious people's morals, mine are very close just without the inducement. I might crack on the hypocrisy of spewing morals at others while breaking them regularly. But, I don't believe core morals came from religions.
Click to expand...

I don't dispute that but I can at least say in my Christian framework killing innocent people is wrong (that has been my anti-abortion stance). We agree that religion has and continues to do bad things. But it is my religion that informs me about this. So if Jesus on the Sermon On The Mount teaches that we should "turn the other cheek", "love your enemies", and "bless those who persecute you", I have a basis to make judgements concerning other Christians who may miss the mark. I don't blame Science for the errors of the scientist. Maybe he is just not following the science correctly.

In regards to core morals not coming from religion, maybe so. But they do come from somewhere. I doubt they reside in nature though. Watching Animal Planet would not be my go to source for moral instruction.

MovingZen said:
All these things predate religions, exist concurrently and separately, and will exist with humanity throughout time even if religion doesn't. I'm sure a good argument could be made that morals and humanitarian notions are more prevalent thanks to religions but those same morals and notions are constantly ignored under the same religious banners with devastating affect. When it's good, sure it's good, but when it's bad, it's really ******* bad. Is your belief in God or your faith what makes you a good person? Or is that just who you are? You either have the core morals or you don't. If you can understand my opinion that these things would exist anyway, you maybe can see why I believe the net effect is a negative.
Click to expand...

Religious beliefs are as old as mankind. Neanderthals buried their dead with personal belongings and there is even earlier evidence from primal man that they may have had a rudimentary idea of some after life.

I agree with the rest. Religious beliefs do go way further back than our more formal systems we have now. Religions to me are just more formal and systematic responses to core beliefs we have always had since the beginning. The question is really where does it come from? Nature or God of Nature?

From a rational standpoint it stands to reason that nature can't give us a higher ethic than just survival of the fittest. Something about that just seems wrong and unfair from a human standpoint. Our welfare systems try to address this. But from an animal standpoint, that is just life. No welfare system in the Serengeti.
 
If our current media/tech capabilities existed at the time Jesus roamed Palestine, he woulda been investigated six ways from Sunday and faced quick exposure. Can you envision his reappearance today (pressers, the deep dive expose on 60 Minutes, and the like).

Very convenient for him, and believers, that he lived in the unenlightened times that he did. I do have to give him and his disciples credit though. The myth/legend has lasted several thousand years. That is no mean feat as his "story" in 2022 would probably have a media shelf life counted in hours, over a day or two.
 
hotshot said:
If our current media/tech capabilities existed at the time Jesus roamed Palestine, he woulda been investigated six ways from Sunday and faced quick exposure. Can you envision his reappearance today (pressers, the deep dive expose on 60 Minutes, and the like).

Very convenient for him, and believers, that he lived in the unenlightened times that he did. I do have to give him and his disciples credit though. The myth/legend has lasted several thousand years. That is no mean feat as his "story" in 2022 would probably have a media shelf life counted in hours, over a day or two.
Click to expand...
Do you realize that the whole “Jesus was resurrected” thing could have easily been debunked on day one…if only his body was still in the tomb?

Even back in those unenlightened days before the advent of CNN that wouldn’t have been hard to do, provided that He really stayed dead.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top