Why believe in god?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No -- anyone can ignore their conscience anytime and people do so frequently -- if you're religious, it's called "sin" and various religions have ways of being officially forgiven, like going to confession or asking god directly for forgiveness.

If you're not religious, it just wrong and the only way to make up for it is to try to make up to whomever you harmed

Yes, I was really touched by Stalin's tribute to all the people he harmed, and the way he turned over a new leaf with all those public foot washings in Leningrad. I think Mao outdid him though, when he went volunteered in orphanages around the country.

Stalin and Mao were bad people -- lots of people have been bad, irrespective of religion.

Way to miss the point, Einstein!

I assume, however, that you're being deliberately obtuse, because you have no good answer.

You remind me of my younger self, when I was maybe 12 or 13. Like you, I had recently discovered the debating strategies you use all the time, like deliberately missing the point and changing the subject. I used to think that this made me such a good debater! Now that I'm a grown-up, I see just how transparent these silly strategies really are (along with ad hominens and reductio ad absurdum). The only thing these strategies accomplish is to make it obvious that you have no good answers. Yes, you've apparently reminded several of us of pre-teens. You're only embarrassing yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting how these threads tend to go way off topic. Why believe in God? You don't need to justify your beliefs. If you have to ask, you don't have beliefs and don't need them. Problem solved.

OP is a troll and one of the biggest arrows in her quiver is to change the subject every time one of her lame arguments gets shut down. See... I dunno... the entire thread.

You're right, though. Nobody needs to justify faith. Several people have already posted this, but OP doesn't like this answer, so then she starts off on new tangents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting how these threads tend to go way off topic. Why believe in God? You don't need to justify your beliefs. If you have to ask, you don't have beliefs and don't need them. Problem solved.

OP is a troll and one of the biggest arrows in her quiver is to change the subject every time one of her lame arguments gets shut down. See... I dunno... the entire thread.

You're right, though. Nobody needs to justify faith. Several people have already posted this, but OP doesn't like this answer, so then she starts off on new tangents.

Faith can't and needn't be justified -- it is a gift given to some and not to others. People with faith just know in their hearts that there is a god. In contrast, people without faith can't know there isn't a god (or many gods) because you cant prove a negative, so when pressed they will say that they don't know

[Anonymous]

It's a leap of faith - beyond logic, beyond language, beyond all we've been taught to put our trust in. I have experienced divine grace, and I attribute that to God.

Being an atheist is also committing to a belief. Why do you believe in no God, OP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's a leap of faith - beyond logic, beyond language, beyond all we've been taught to put our trust in. I have experienced divine grace, and I attribute that to God.

Being an atheist is also committing to a belief. Why do you believe in no God, OP?

Because you can't prove it to her, that's why. This whole thread is like a hamster wheel - lots of spininng but going nowhere. I'm less interested in why OP doesn't believe in God than in why she cares so much whether or not other people do, and gets so all-fired angry about it. It must suck walking through life like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a leap of faith - beyond logic, beyond language, beyond all we've been taught to put our trust in. I have experienced divine grace, and I attribute that to God.

Being an atheist is also committing to a belief. Why do you believe in no God, OP?

Because you can't prove it to her, that's why. This whole thread is like a hamster wheel - lots of spininng but going nowhere. I'm less interested in why OP doesn't believe in God than in why she cares so much whether or not other people do, and gets so all-fired angry about it. It must suck walking through life like that.

Also, why does OP keep starting threads like this? I'm pretty sure she's the OP of the "What's the Right Answer?" thread. Which was another vehicle for ill-informed rants about the pagan origins of the December 25th holiday, a dollop of ridicule for the "faith" concept, again all ballled up under another misleadingly neutral thread title.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Jesus is not the first story of the son of a god, born on Dec 25th, of a virgin, and resurrected in the spring. Understanding these aspects of religious history, how is it possible to truly believe one story and not another? Do those of you who believe have any knowledge of religious history or do you prefer to blind yourself to these realities?

What story are you referring to?

This particular example is of Horus. There are many examples of religion taking on aspects of older belief structures, the stories make the transition easier. Look up the history behind caroling, that's some crazy shit!

Carolling is crazy sh!t? (Note the spelling of sh!t, so it doesn't get caught by the IT people at somebody's workplace.) If you say so.

Fact is, carolling, along with Christmas trees and reindeer, have nothing to do with the scriptural basis of Christianity. These things, although lovely, were secular practices appended onto the faith, but they are in no way a fundamental part of it. If somebody ripped carolling, bell ringing, reindeer, snow, presents, ivy and egg nog out of Christmas starting tomorrow, the New Testament would be completely untouched. That's right, there's no carolling, snow, reindeer or ivy in the canonical New Testament.

Exactly. Those of us who are Christian and celebrate Christmas as a religious holiday recognize caroling, Santa, trees, etc etc as secular aspects of the holiday. I would argue however that the tradition of giving presents is tied directly to the New Testament, and is done to symbolize both the gift of Jesus himself and the gifts of the three kings.

Jesus was not born on Dec. 25th.
The whole idea of the Christmas tree and putting presents under it was pagan celebration for the birth of Nimrod, who was born on Dec. 25th.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Jesus is not the first story of the son of a god, born on Dec 25th, of a virgin, and resurrected in the spring. Understanding these aspects of religious history, how is it possible to truly believe one story and not another? Do those of you who believe have any knowledge of religious history or do you prefer to blind yourself to these realities?

What story are you referring to?

This particular example is of Horus. There are many examples of religion taking on aspects of older belief structures, the stories make the transition easier. Look up the history behind caroling, that's some crazy shit!

Carolling is crazy sh!t? (Note the spelling of sh!t, so it doesn't get caught by the IT people at somebody's workplace.) If you say so.

Fact is, carolling, along with Christmas trees and reindeer, have nothing to do with the scriptural basis of Christianity. These things, although lovely, were secular practices appended onto the faith, but they are in no way a fundamental part of it. If somebody ripped carolling, bell ringing, reindeer, snow, presents, ivy and egg nog out of Christmas starting tomorrow, the New Testament would be completely untouched. That's right, there's no carolling, snow, reindeer or ivy in the canonical New Testament.

Exactly. Those of us who are Christian and celebrate Christmas as a religious holiday recognize caroling, Santa, trees, etc etc as secular aspects of the holiday. I would argue however that the tradition of giving presents is tied directly to the New Testament, and is done to symbolize both the gift of Jesus himself and the gifts of the three kings.

Jesus was not born on Dec. 25th.
The whole idea of the Christmas tree and putting presents under it was pagan celebration for the birth of Nimrod, who was born on Dec. 25th.

Don't forget the Persian god Mithras, also born on the 25th -- don't know about any tree or gifts associated with him, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Exactly. Those of us who are Christian and celebrate Christmas as a religious holiday recognize caroling, Santa, trees, etc etc as secular aspects of the holiday. I would argue however that the tradition of giving presents is tied directly to the New Testament, and is done to symbolize both the gift of Jesus himself and the gifts of the three kings.

Jesus was not born on Dec. 25th.
The whole idea of the Christmas tree and putting presents under it was pagan celebration for the birth of Nimrod, who was born on Dec. 25th.

How did you manage to pull up a post from several days ago, but you missed entire pages on Jesus' birthday?

Oh right, that's what you do. You recycle crap to keep the thread going.

Yawn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Jesus is not the first story of the son of a god, born on Dec 25th, of a virgin, and resurrected in the spring. Understanding these aspects of religious history, how is it possible to truly believe one story and not another? Do those of you who believe have any knowledge of religious history or do you prefer to blind yourself to these realities?

What story are you referring to?

This particular example is of Horus. There are many examples of religion taking on aspects of older belief structures, the stories make the transition easier. Look up the history behind caroling, that's some crazy shit!

Carolling is crazy sh!t? (Note the spelling of sh!t, so it doesn't get caught by the IT people at somebody's workplace.) If you say so.

Fact is, carolling, along with Christmas trees and reindeer, have nothing to do with the scriptural basis of Christianity. These things, although lovely, were secular practices appended onto the faith, but they are in no way a fundamental part of it. If somebody ripped carolling, bell ringing, reindeer, snow, presents, ivy and egg nog out of Christmas starting tomorrow, the New Testament would be completely untouched. That's right, there's no carolling, snow, reindeer or ivy in the canonical New Testament.

Exactly. Those of us who are Christian and celebrate Christmas as a religious holiday recognize caroling, Santa, trees, etc etc as secular aspects of the holiday. I would argue however that the tradition of giving presents is tied directly to the New Testament, and is done to symbolize both the gift of Jesus himself and the gifts of the three kings.

Jesus was not born on Dec. 25th.
The whole idea of the Christmas tree and putting presents under it was pagan celebration for the birth of Nimrod, who was born on Dec. 25th.

Don't forget the Persian god Mithras, also born on the 25th -- don't know about any tree or gifts associated with him, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don't forget the Persian god Mithras, also born on the 25th -- don't know about any tree or gifts associated with him, though.

Who could forget the discussion about Mirthras the last time you brought it up, which was maybe a week ago?

Since you clearly want to forget that discussion ever happened, let me summarize for other readers:

You: Mithras!
Another poster: Mirthras existed in parts of Persia but wasn't known in the Roman world until the 2nd century AD. That is, after the gospels were written.
You: Read this Guardian article!
Another poster: That article talks about worshipping the Southern Cross--which can only be seen in the Southern Hemisphere, not from Jerusalem or Rome. (An aside: I read the Guardian every morning myself, but I have to say, that was one of their lamer articles.)

[Anonymous]

^^^ ugh, don't know why it says Mirthras instead of Mithras in my post. Typing too fast, or maybe spell check.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't forget the Persian god Mithras, also born on the 25th -- don't know about any tree or gifts associated with him, though.

Who could forget the discussion about Mirthras the last time you brought it up, which was maybe a week ago?

Since you clearly want to forget that discussion ever happened, let me summarize for other readers:

You: Mithras!
Another poster: Mirthras existed in parts of Persia but wasn't known in the Roman world until the 2nd century AD. That is, after the gospels were written.
You: Read this Guardian article!
Another poster: That article talks about worshipping the Southern Cross--which can only be seen in the Southern Hemisphere, not from Jerusalem or Rome. (An aside: I read the Guardian every morning myself, but I have to say, that was one of their lamer articles.)

For those who actually want to look into this Zeitgeist junk about Horus and Mithras and all that, instead of just parroting something Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins like to spout off about, you'll see that what's really going on is that elements of the Christian faith are being inserted retroactively into these myths. It's a Satanic deception, meant to keep you from your Savior.

[Anonymous]

Actually, a lot of this was done symbolically. And one doesn't have to go deceit, co-optation etc to understand why the birth of Christ was put where it was in the liturgical calendar.

The medieval and pre-medieval mind had a sense of tidiness and symmetry and tying things to nature in a symbolic way. The pace of human life was more generally far more tied to the ebb and flow of nature than it is today and much symbolism was rooted in these yearly natural events.

Symbolically, Jesus should be born on the evening of the shortest day of the year because he is bringing light to the world and the end of darkness. For much the same reason, John the Baptist is born on the eve of the days becoming shorter as he was announcing the end of the age of darkness.

The New Testament tells us the Jesus died during passover week, firmly putting his death in the spring. For those who say there is no proof that anything in the Bible is true, it doesn't really matter. Spring is the time of new life and since Christ died so that we may live, it is fitting that his death be in spring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Actually, a lot of this was done symbolically. And one doesn't have to go deceit, co-optation etc to understand why the birth of Christ was put where it was in the liturgical calendar.

The medieval and pre-medieval mind had a sense of tidiness and symmetry and tying things to nature in a symbolic way. The pace of human life was more generally far more tied to the ebb and flow of nature than it is today and much symbolism was rooted in these yearly natural events.

Symbolically, Jesus should be born on the evening of the shortest day of the year because he is bringing light to the world and the end of darkness. For much the same reason, John the Baptist is born on the eve of the days becoming shorter as he was announcing the end of the age of darkness.

The New Testament tells us the Jesus died during passover week, firmly putting his death in the spring. For those who say there is no proof that anything in the Bible is true, it doesn't really matter. Spring is the time of new life and since Christ died so that we may live, it is fitting that his death be in spring.

fitting, perhaps, but not proof, but then proof doesn't matter -- because there isn't any, but so what, we like to believe it, so we will.