The "Existence of God" debate

Great Debates
41

Both! Yes, Christianity got a huge boost when it became the official state religion of the Roman Empire. This allowed them to use the force of law, backed up by armed legions, to eradicate other religions and to compel public Christian worship.

What I’m astonished at is that anyone would think this is a good thing. Official state-mandated Christianity is every bit as ugly as official state-mandated atheism. Constantine et al not only ruined the Empire by making Christianity into a state religion: they also ruined Christianity itself! They put weapons into the hands of the priests. It shouldn’t have been a surprise when that led to warrior-priests.

42

They think it’s a good thing because it allowed Christianity to slaughter its way into being the world’s largest religion, and that’s what really matters.

43

I must say that so far this debate is going rather well. I mean everybody’s giving their opinion politely (sort of) and i don’t notice any overblown animosity or hostility. I wish all debates on religion could be like this.

I totally agree. Christianity does not behave Christian. (as in Jesus or the bible)
They made a lot of claims but their deeds showed those words to be just words.

I could not have said it better! It ruined it, yes it was the death blow to the true faith.

I follow Jesus Christ but can not deny the horrific deeds that people who *call **themselves *Christians have comitted. (for centuries)

Therefore i can not say enough that if you look closely at what the Bible defines as Christians you see that most “Christians” are not Christian. The proof is also in ones actions, no matter what he says.

Some Bible verses defining Christian behavior and trademarks::

Tolerance, peacefulness Matthew 5:44, Romans 12:13
Politics, nationalism : John 15:19, John 17:15,16 Luke 4:5-8, John 6:15(!)

Materialism, greed: Matthew 6:19-21, 1 John 2:15-17
Pride, Ambition: Luke 20:46,47

Abiding laws, taxes: Luke 20:20-25, Romans 13:1-7, Titus 3:1,2, 1 Peter 2:12
Non violence, Neutrality: Matthew 26:51,52 John 18:36, Romans 12:17-19

Showing love: **1 John 4:8, 20, 1 John3:10-12 1 Peter 4:8 **
No more warfare: 2 Corinthians 10:3-5

Not putting faith in human government: Daniel 2:44, Revelation 16:14
Taking a stand when ordered to act against conscience: Acts 5:27-29
(think of Germany 1933, Soviet Russia or refusing military service at all times)

Forgiving Colossians 3:12-14, Matthew 6:14,15
Anger management: James 1:19, 20 Ephesians 4:31, 32

Humanism, peacemaking: Romans 12:20, 21 (not like Gitmo, Hiroshima or the Crusades)
Being nice to different minded people: Matthew 7:1,2

Being humble: Romans 3:23
No racism or discrimination: Acts 10:28 10:34,35

And so on…

The hijacking or poisoning of the faith was foretold in the Bible before it happened: 1 Timothy 4:1-3, Acts 20:30, Matthew 13:24-30.

I believe Christianity’s days are numbered though. Governments will ban religion.

44

You blame Religion and not People. You seem to think that Religion is the overriding evil here and that people would be nice and happy without religion. That opinion, sir, is a load.

Yes, but it’s not like they wouldn’t have had other falsehoods to rally around.

I mean…Will you give me your view of how the world would have evolved if we hadn’t had religion?

Do you think that how our heads work would have been different? I don’t. Instead of crying God’s name as they strode across the battlefield to take Jerusalem from the Islamics, they would have screamed their kings’ name as they strode across the battlefield. People did it all the time when they were the SAME religion. 1000 years of near-constant warfare in Europe didn’t happen because they were trying to evangelize and “spread the word”. It happened because men want power. They want money. They want aggrandizement.

Christianity founded itself on the Roman Empire’s roots. It wouldn’t have had any sway over the kingdoms that followed had Rome never embraced it as the state religion and given it a milieu to grow within.

But, then, “genocide, slavery, tyranny, torture, book burning, the destruction of entire cultures” is how every empire got anywhere. Even those that didn’t kill under the banner of God. Alexander the Great’s military expansion wasn’t at the behest of a God, it was for his own aggrandizement. Roman expansion was a natural non-god movement as they conquered the areas around them, starting with Carthage, to give them security. Then they just kept going. Yes, they had gods that people would worship, but they weren’t directed by them to go ruin the other religions. (Early Romans actually respected other religions) The Egyptians spent several periods of time aggressively expanding and they spread their gods in some conquering waves (but not all of them). Did they do it because of religion or to bring themselves more power?

As an aside, if you are talking about the depopulation of the Americas (two continents :frowning: ), there are some guesses that it would have happened, anyway. The fun viruses and bacteria Europeans brought (even if they had been peaceful) with them did most of the depopulation for the Europeans.

Why do you ascribe PEOPLE doing things to their religion of choice? Is capitalism guilty of making you stab your neighbor? Is Obama? You operate under both of those and capitalism says to increase economic efficiency. You could CERTAINLY be more efficient if you had your neighbor’s house as a driver way. And…Obama says capitalism is great.

Our jurisprudence would be remiss if they let you blame either of them and send you home for supper. (The closest you could get to getting off is a mental commitment if you said that you heard Obama telling you to kill…or be more efficient?)

Actually, it’s your convenience that I assail. I attribute evil to PEOPLE and not to collective organizations. The Democrats aren’t trying to kill off everyone but 500,000,000 people on earth. The Republicans aren’t trying to make everyone stupid and fat through bad education and worse food. Not all Christians say that homosexuals are evil. Not all Muslims say that all Americans are evil.

But ALL of those statements are used by one group or another to create hate. By grouping everyone under the same banner, you demonize something as a nebulous “threat”. You are doing the same thing your religious fore-bearers did, which is ascribe an us vs them approach to life.

All Indians (native Americans) are evil and lost and we need to save their souls.

sounds an awful lot like

All [Christians/Religious People] are ignorant and stupid and we need to help them.

You may say “Oh, I’ll never take it as far as the religious assholes 1000 years ago did!” but what about the people who join your ideology? What happens when your ideals transition from “Jews suck!” to “Nazi Fascism” like they did in Germany? Why must we always blame the things people care (or pretend to care about) instead of the people?

Who says that? I would love to ridicule them with you.

45

No; they would in general be better however.

And it demonstrates how anti-human religion is that you want to demonize people in order to make religion look better.

Probably. We wouldn’t have been subjected to thousands of years of selective breeding for irrationality by believers who kill people for being insufficiently pious. We wouldn’t have had our cultures twisted so monstrously by religion. We’d probably be scientifically well ahead of where we are now.

Sure it did, all the time.

That’s not true. Plenty of empires weren’t particularly interested in annihilating entire cultures and replacing them; they wanted wealth, not adherence to theology.

Until they became infected by Christianity.

No, because it’s not profitable to do so (and what makes you think I like capitalism?) Religion however demands irrational behavior, and Christianity specifically has conquest and tyranny built into its basic worldview.

Sure they are; well, stupid at least. They want ignorance and irrationality (in no small part because they are such rabid Christians), so of course they work to promote it.

46

Let’s see, so science is opposite to religion, let’s test that theory…
------------------------- The beginning ------------------------------------
Religion holds that in the beginning, God spoke and all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible,all things were created by him, and for him:
Science holds that in the beginning, the Big Bang occurred and all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible,all things were created by the Big Bang and for the Big Bang

So some might say that in the beginning was the Word and Word was with God and the Word was God. But that is you if subscribe to the belief that the Universe had a beginning, which both Science and Religion are based upon the same principle that the Universe had a beginning.

-------------------------------- Speaking of Time-------------------------------------

So if from the beginning time, space and mass exploded out from a compressed state to form this universe which as is supposed by science, how it could their be a beginning of time if it existed before the beginning according to the big bang.
So those who think they have eternal life because they believe it says that they do, what time is it where you are at? Big difference between eternal and everlasting…

47

Not to mention that Science and Religion holds that our ability to speak the spoken word originates from our flesh, and of course our ability to write the written spoken word just developed by the wisdom of man’s own knowledge, so how many of you taught yourself how to read and write?

48

I don’t need to demonize people. I can leave them to their own devices to demonstrate it.

Selective breeding is an interesting take on it, I have to admit. But that’s a hard claim to make and either prove or deny. I would have to ask on this: Is the human psyche not varied, today? I mean, there are plenty of personality types. Are they all conducive to Religious Piety? Could I convert you (as a rather passionate antagonist of Christianity) to a true believer, for instance?

I’d think (without any research, this is off the cuff) that the human psyche is sufficiently varied that we didn’t have much effect in the selective breeding, if this were an effect. But, like I said, this would have to be researched extensively. I don’t think there’s a handy tome called “Selective Breed for Christ’s Work” :slight_smile:

Germans were trying to evangelize the French? The French were trying to evangelize the Germans? The English, granted, were ALL ABOUT evangelizing the Scots and Celtics/Irish. But the English-French wars weren’t about evangelizing, either.

That really, really varied. Some cultures (like the Sea Peoples) would destroy all conquered lands burn them down and rebuilt on top of them. Other cultures, like the Assyrians, would conquer you and make a vassal state. Egypt tried both at various times.

But you’d get more efficiency out of making your neighbor’s house into a driveway! That’s capitalistic! Also, I didn’t mean to imply that you were a devout follower of capitalism, just that you operated under it. The Obama reference was hoping to strengthen that relative “under him” feel.

There are certainly elements of the Republicans that want that. I’d give a good wager that there are even Christians who want that for specifically that reason. But that doesn’t apply to all Republicans. In all of those examples I gave, I took one negative view of a subset of the group and applied it to everyone in that group.

I’m sure we could both find people in each group that matched the stereotypical label I applied…but it doesn’t mean everyone believes it within that group.

49

Nope. The Big Bang only created a large amount of energy. “All things” such as galaxies came later. (And no scientist would ever say that anything happened “for” the Big Bang. That’s absurd. That’s like saying Saturn’s Rings are “decorations” for the planet. We may find them decorous, but that isn’t what they are “for.” Science doesn’t attribute personal characteristics to inert objects. That’s the purview of religion.)

No one knows what happened “before” time began. I might as well ask you, what was God doing before he existed? No one knows. These aren’t questions that either science or religion can answer.

50

Science could prove it. All you have to do is start by debunking the Theory of General Relativity. Once you’re done there, you could almost certainly construct a craft to enter the period before time began!*

*If you do this and you annihilate the universe before it exists…It wasn’t my idea.

Why do you think writing just jumped out of our brains? Just like the ability to make sounds, and actual speaking before it, it’s been through a long evolutionary processes of refinement.

The first sounds our ancestors made were probably ape-like. And our first “writing” was likely simple map-like (Deer is here, you go around here, I go here to attack) directions in the dirt, eventually following into paintings and such on cave walls.

Sadly, much of our writing history is likely lost forever as we didn’t use clay or paper-like records until around 4,000 BC, so tracing a proper growth/refinement path will likely never happen.

51

Religion (well, a few religions): In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth.

Reality: Earth came way, way after. Game set and match.

But that isn’t the real difference. The real difference is that religion believes in what has been handed down, either 2600 years ago, 1900 years ago, or 200 years ago in upstate New York. Science always challenges what has been handed down, and looks for better ways to explain reality.

52

No, that’s a complete mischaracterization of what modern science claims.

And most importantly of all science has facts and logic to back it up; religion has nothing.

With the right torture/brainwashing techniques I’m sure you’d have a pretty good chance of doing so. You could also convince me to worship tree frogs the same way.

53

If an alternative theory to the Big Bang emerges and it makes a much more compelling case, explaining the nature of the world in a superior fashion to the BB Theory, science will concede that it was “wrong” and adopt a new paradigm.

On the occasion that a religion alters is dogma, it is must be God or some other external supernatural force who changes its mind. Which means that religions rarely change in a substantial way. “Let’s keep believing stupid shit! It’s not our place to question why!”

54

God definitely exists. Einstein thought so.

55

I see religion as a tool for people to get through life. It can and is used for good or evil. depending on the circumstances.

Like a knife, it can be used to cut some bread etc. for some it is used to kill or maim.

It isn’t the religion it is how it is used.

56

Brainwashing isn’t something that can actually happen through torture like that. The more you torture, the more that someone will say anything they think you want to hear.

So, if you were to be tortured until you confessed that goats were the supreme rulers of earth, you wouldn’t maintain that claim outside of the threat of returning to that torture. If anything, your resolve might be pushed underground (no talking to friends, for instance, that it’s the horses that should be worshipped). But your attitudes wouldn’t change.

You’d also probably try very hard to leave the area of influence of your torturers.

There are ways you can trick the brain into identifying with their captor, but as far as I know, it’s hit or miss. Stockholm Syndrome, for instance, only happens about 8% [22-25] of the time when the FBI are dealing with hostage situations.

57

Not exactly -

[QUOTE=Religious and philosophical views of Albert Einstein - Wikipedia]
Albert Einstein’s religious views have been studied extensively. He said he believed in the “pantheistic” God of Baruch Spinoza, but not in a personal god, a belief he criticized. He also called himself an agnostic, while disassociating himself from the label atheist, preferring, he said, “an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.”[1]
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Einstein]
I came—though the child of entirely irreligious (Jewish) parents—to a deep religiousness, which, however, reached an abrupt end at the age of twelve. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true.
[/QUOTE]

And ‘believing’ does not equal ‘proof’ of existence.

58

I mostly agree. It’s like fire: it can warm your house…or consume it. If it weren’t religion, it would be some other concept or notion. If we weren’t fighting over Catholics vs. Protestants, we’d be fighting all the harder over National League vs. American League. The “Designated Hitter Rule” is one of our big national “heresies.” Imagine if fans had the power to burn people alive for holding the wrong belief about it…

Religion has done much good in this world. It is not an unalloyed poison.

It’s major problem is that it does not contain an organic principle for reform. Reform must come in the form of breakaway protest. Martin Luther had no means by which he could induce the church to address its problems: he had to defy them openly. This is a serious organization flaw in the concept.

59

The way you compare and present your evidence is at the least unfair. (to the ignorant or lazy visitor) You make it seem as the creation all happened in one moment or in one go according to the Bible.

Again, it is not stated exactly how long that took. It does not state minutes, hours or so. It uses the word day. However the bible also clearly says time measurements (like the word day) for God are much longer than when used for human time marking. (such as the same word day)

**Genesis 1:9 **
And God went on to say: “Let the waters under the heavens be brought together into one place and let the dry land appear.” And it came to be so.

All casual readers assume that Genesis does not just talk about creation of Earth and our galaxy but the entire universe. But that is nowhere indicated! Genesis 1:9 shows that the word heavens does not mean the entire universe.

Since it talks about the waters under the heavens it more likely points to our skies or atmosphere or the space surrounding our planet. Maybe it means our solar system.

I assume this because Genesis 1:14-16 says

And God went on to say: “Let luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night;+ and they must serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years.+ 15 And they must serve as luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth.”+ And it came to be so. 16 And God proceeded to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars*

So moon and sun stars in the expanse of the heavens. So again heavens clearly does not mean the entire universe. A 12 year old could look up the verses i just did and counter your claims.
I just looked this up 15 minutes ago. No research, didn’t ask anyone. The difference between me and most critics, is that i don’t look at the Bible as rubbish before i start looking at the arguments and evidence.

If you disrespect or hate a source, you won’t read it thoroughly or even try to catch the context. You will want to spend as little time possible to pick what you need to attack it.
The remotest notion that it could be correct is laughable, so your research is clouded. Your not working scientifically at all. And i feel a certain arrogance and perceived superiority over people that lived thousands of years ago. (they must be stupid, we know more!)
Yes i believe in the Bible and you might claim i’m just biased the other way. But the same way i look at the Bible, is how i look at the arguments critics put forward. Let the evidence speak, we don’t need to pimp the facts.

What i often see here on this forum is a shuffling of the facts, assuming things not even written in the Bible or altering the meaning of words to lend more force to an opinion.
Why would one need such tricks to push their views if you are scientifically sure the Bible is not correct?
Unfortunately scientists are also human and not immune to these habits. Winning (or earning) is the highest (and only) goal for some.
If you follow the news you must have noticed that fraud and plagiarism in the highest regions of science is not rare. (rampant these days)

How often have macro-evolutionists not been caught faking or altering fossils or data? Sometimes for fun, more often for funds. But it seems on this forum nobody knows or cares to talk about that side. (or did i miss it?)

I see a lot of people quoting science or scientists as if they’re talking about a friend next door that always speaks the truth. What’s worse there’s relatively few links or sources with their statements.

Is there anyone here that can show me some solid scientific evidence the Bible is false, a fable, incorrect or at least partially outdated by scientific discovery accepted unanimously by global standards?

I would love to look at your evidence and sources and take it to the university or ask a professor. I know a few academics. If i am wrong, deluded or wasting my time on the Bible, you can help me. Just give me some solid facts.
PS I hate religion and all the pain it caused. I separate religion and Bible. That’s why i *study *the book.
From research and reasoning i distinguish between faiths and know that most religion is indeed scientifically outdated or outright false.
I’m just not convinced the Bible is false. You can burn the rest for all i care.

60

It depends on how “false” you want it to be. The age of the earth can be calculated by taking the Bible painstakingly literal, and it’s less than 8,000 years. That the world is scientifically measured to be much older than that makes the Bible “false” to that degree.

If you’re comfortable, as most Christians are, in saying that the age of the earth cannot literally be deduced by adding up the ages of the patriarchs, then, no, the Bible isn’t “false” in that way.

There are still a handful of other problems. The Bible has a certain number of apparent contradictions. Again, these only pose obstacles for hyper-literalists. The rest are comfortable with it and don’t spend a lot of time being bugged by it. (Was the tomb open or closed on the first Easter, etc. Modern Christianity just shrugs it off. Rashomon: one witness remembered it one way, and another remembered it another way. Over the years, we received both versions.)

A slightly more painful question is the inclusion of the book of Daniel. Daniel doesn’t really belong, as it seems to have been written at a later date than it purports to have been. It’s a work of “historical fiction,” not a serious book of Jeremiahic prophecy. It strikes me as a sign of painful ignorance when radio and TV preachers rely heavily on Daniel in their study.

“False?” Yes, in some ways, to some degree. It’s up to each individual to decide how much it matters.