Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I think the title pretty much sums up the question. One more though.
Are you offended by this question?
Depending on the answer, I could be a believer and just do not know it
God: (n) Pronoun: James Teunis Beukema
Do you believe in JB?
I already was crucified and cam back. You an read about it in my next book
I will not part that gulf- too many of them are here as it is
I have declared the drinking of wine to be a sin. Only vodka or Guinness is acceptable, and I demand regular offerings of Guinness and 57 T-birds (florida plates).
Also, the Age of Miracles recently expired (sorry 'bout that) this is now the Era of Doubt, when many false prophets shall walk the Earth and your trust in me shall be tested. remain steadfast in your faith! Soon, John Frum shall return to ready the world for me and I shall rise up to be with Myself. then, all who rejected me shall be tortured for eternity while those who accepted My word shall spend eternity in servitude to me, whilst the selected of my children shall spend eternity singing in m,y heavenly choir...
I haven’t read everyone’s post in this thread but I want to respond with my take on this. I’m a believer and there is no way to convince a non-believer to believe or expect them to even understand why I believe because my experiences are personal but has solidified my belief.
In other words, you can't defend your beliefs or position and try to cop put by claiming that we'll 'never understand'..
I think the title pretty much sums up the question. One more though.
Are you offended by this question?
I haven’t read everyone’s post in this thread but I want to respond with my take on this. I’m a believer and there is no way to convince a non-believer to believe or expect them to even understand why I believe because my experiences are personal but has solidified my belief.
In other words, you can't defend your beliefs or position and try to cop put by claiming that we'll 'never understand'..
Beliefs are something that shouldn't need to be 'defended'. Beliefs are very personal and I would bet anyone $1 (U.S. funds) that no two people on the planet over the age of 27 share exactly the same belief set.
We will have matured as a species when we recognize this and respect each others right to believe whatever we want to as long as we live our lives within the constrains of various rules of law that we can agree to in spite of our various ways of looking at life.
Truth and Logic leads to only one plausible conclusion. What ever is responsible for creating the Universe and Life itself, it is far superior and SUPERNATURALLY existing, as nature, which fails to have the ability to comprehend its own existence in any empirical fashion can not define such as its own origin, thus man can only bend a knee and accept his place as inferior to such a cause. Be it physical or Spiritual it certainly is greater than man as indeed how can the product be greater than the total from which it was subtracted? Thus...to man IT IS GOD, and should be given the respect that it demands. As of right now man has no answers, only questions that remain incomprehensible. I simply find anyone suggesting they can define God or place limits on Him, as Pompous, as demonstrated, they cannot even define their own origins yet want to mandate what someone must accept as truth? Funny indeed.
In other words, you can't defend your beliefs or position and try to cop put by claiming that we'll 'never understand'..
Beliefs are something that shouldn't need to be 'defended'. Beliefs are very personal and I would bet anyone $1 (U.S. funds) that no two people on the planet over the age of 27 share exactly the same belief set.
We will have matured as a species when we recognize this and respect each others right to believe whatever we want to as long as we live our lives within the constrains of various rules of law that we can agree to in spite of our various ways of looking at life.
I disagree. I'll quote William Clifford in saying that no one has a right to believe anything without good reason. Why? Because some beliefs can be dangerous. The example that Clifford gives for this is a ship owner who believes his ship to be in good working order even though he has not bothered to examine it. He sends the ship out on a voyage and it sinks, and all the passengers are killed.
You might argue that the story about the ship has nothing to do with religion, but I think that it does. What if you believe in a religion which claims that all non-believers in your religion are scum and should be killed? How would you justify believing in that religion with no evidence that it's true when it goes against what you see as other people's rights to believe whatever they want without having to have evidence that it's true?
I have heard a lot of people make the claim that people should be allowed to believe whatever they want without having to defend their beliefs...but I have yet to have anyone give me an explanation as to WHY beliefs (especially religious beliefs) are put on such a pedestal. What is it that makes religious beliefs untouchable? In my opinion, religious beliefs are simply answers to the questions of how we got here, why we're here, and what happens after we die...all questions that people have been trying to answer throughout history. Why, when someone believes they have found the answers to those questions through religion, should they be somehow protected from having to defend those beliefs to others who are also seeking answers to those same age-old questions?
I would challenge you to explain why you think it's wrong to question another person's religious beliefs, and why people should not be expected to be able to defend their beliefs.
Beliefs are something that shouldn't need to be 'defended'. Beliefs are very personal and I would bet anyone $1 (U.S. funds) that no two people on the planet over the age of 27 share exactly the same belief set.
We will have matured as a species when we recognize this and respect each others right to believe whatever we want to as long as we live our lives within the constrains of various rules of law that we can agree to in spite of our various ways of looking at life.
I disagree. I'll quote William Clifford in saying that no one has a right to believe anything without good reason. Why? Because some beliefs can be dangerous. The example that Clifford gives for this is a ship owner who believes his ship to be in good working order even though he has not bothered to examine it. He sends the ship out on a voyage and it sinks, and all the passengers are killed.
You might argue that the story about the ship has nothing to do with religion, but I think that it does. What if you believe in a religion which claims that all non-believers in your religion are scum and should be killed? How would you justify believing in that religion with no evidence that it's true when it goes against what you see as other people's rights to believe whatever they want without having to have evidence that it's true?
I have heard a lot of people make the claim that people should be allowed to believe whatever they want without having to defend their beliefs...but I have yet to have anyone give me an explanation as to WHY beliefs (especially religious beliefs) are put on such a pedestal. What is it that makes religious beliefs untouchable? In my opinion, religious beliefs are simply answers to the questions of how we got here, why we're here, and what happens after we die...all questions that people have been trying to answer throughout history. Why, when someone believes they have found the answers to those questions through religion, should they be somehow protected from having to defend those beliefs to others who are also seeking answers to those same age-old questions?
I would challenge you to explain why you think it's wrong to question another person's religious beliefs, and why people should not be expected to be able to defend their beliefs.
Dude, you miss the point of my thesis... Everybody has a belief set of some sort. The sooner that we recognize everyones right to think wrong, providing they don't act in a way which violates the covenant agreement we have with each other called 'The Law', the sooner we will be on the road to establishing fair laws.
Imagine if every person over the age of consent with beliefs that differed from the powers that be had to defend their beliefs to the powers that be...
Wouldn't it be easier to make rules for our little community based on behavior?
-Joe
I do not believe in any god(s). I just haven't seen any evidence to lead me to the conclusion one exists. don't know how the universe began (assuming it did begin at all), I don't know how life first began on this planet, I don't know if there is life or intelligence elsewhere in the universe, etc. etc. I haven't been given a reason to believe anyone's particular god, or any god at all, is the answer to these questions
stuff
I disagree. I'll quote William Clifford in saying that no one has a right to believe anything without good reason. Why? Because some beliefs can be dangerous. The example that Clifford gives for this is a ship owner who believes his ship to be in good working order even though he has not bothered to examine it. He sends the ship out on a voyage and it sinks, and all the passengers are killed.
You might argue that the story about the ship has nothing to do with religion, but I think that it does. What if you believe in a religion which claims that all non-believers in your religion are scum and should be killed? How would you justify believing in that religion with no evidence that it's true when it goes against what you see as other people's rights to believe whatever they want without having to have evidence that it's true?
I have heard a lot of people make the claim that people should be allowed to believe whatever they want without having to defend their beliefs...but I have yet to have anyone give me an explanation as to WHY beliefs (especially religious beliefs) are put on such a pedestal. What is it that makes religious beliefs untouchable? In my opinion, religious beliefs are simply answers to the questions of how we got here, why we're here, and what happens after we die...all questions that people have been trying to answer throughout history. Why, when someone believes they have found the answers to those questions through religion, should they be somehow protected from having to defend those beliefs to others who are also seeking answers to those same age-old questions?
I would challenge you to explain why you think it's wrong to question another person's religious beliefs, and why people should not be expected to be able to defend their beliefs.
Dude, you miss the point of my thesis... Everybody has a belief set of some sort. The sooner that we recognize everyones right to think wrong, providing they don't act in a way which violates the covenant agreement we have with each other called 'The Law', the sooner we will be on the road to establishing fair laws.
Imagine if every person over the age of consent with beliefs that differed from the powers that be had to defend their beliefs to the powers that be...
Wouldn't it be easier to make rules for our little community based on behavior?
-Joe
I agree with you up to a point, that point being that people often want to base 'The Law' on their beliefs. For example, the debate on gay marriage...those who oppose it do so on the grounds that homosexuality is immoral according to their religion. So if the law were based on that religion, then gay marriage should be illegal...but now we've mixed the two. What is immoral about homosexuality outside of religion? Where is the line drawn between beliefs and "the covenant agreement we have on each other"? So many people have different sets of beliefs, which include moral codes, that it makes it difficult to come up with such an agreement outside of religion.
I understand what you're saying, but the reason I'm suggesting that beliefs should have to be defended is that all too often they do cause people to behave in ways that violate 'The Law'. Throughout history, people have committed hideous crimes in the name of one god or another. True, in many societies today those who commit crimes are often punished regardless of whether the motive behind them was religion; but the point is that people still commit acts which violate 'The Law' because of their religious beliefs, and yet those beliefs remain elevated above criticism or questioning.
And I'm not sure why you say people would have to defend their beliefs to the powers that be...why wouldn't the powers that be have to defend their beliefs in the first place? In a dictatorship, maybe, but that's a whole other situation. I'm suggesting that the starting point for all this is that the origin, purpose, and eventual fate of our existence is a great mystery, so anyone who thinks they know the answers to those questions should have to defend those answers, including the powers that be.
That is your opinion as you even stated "Think" Also one doesn't have to follow a RELIGION to believe in GOD.In other words, you can't defend your beliefs or position and try to cop put by claiming that we'll 'never understand'..
Beliefs are something that shouldn't need to be 'defended'. Beliefs are very personal and I would bet anyone $1 (U.S. funds) that no two people on the planet over the age of 27 share exactly the same belief set.
We will have matured as a species when we recognize this and respect each others right to believe whatever we want to as long as we live our lives within the constrains of various rules of law that we can agree to in spite of our various ways of looking at life.
I disagree. I'll quote William Clifford in saying that no one has a right to believe anything without good reason. Why? Because some beliefs can be dangerous. The example that Clifford gives for this is a ship owner who believes his ship to be in good working order even though he has not bothered to examine it. He sends the ship out on a voyage and it sinks, and all the passengers are killed.
You might argue that the story about the ship has nothing to do with religion, but I think that it does. What if you believe in a religion which claims that all non-believers in your religion are scum and should be killed? How would you justify believing in that religion with no evidence that it's true when it goes against what you see as other people's rights to believe whatever they want without having to have evidence that it's true?
I have heard a lot of people make the claim that people should be allowed to believe whatever they want without having to defend their beliefs...but I have yet to have anyone give me an explanation as to WHY beliefs (especially religious beliefs) are put on such a pedestal. What is it that makes religious beliefs untouchable? In my opinion, religious beliefs are simply answers to the questions of how we got here, why we're here, and what happens after we die...all questions that people have been trying to answer throughout history. Why, when someone believes they have found the answers to those questions through religion, should they be somehow protected from having to defend those beliefs to others who are also seeking answers to those same age-old questions?
I would challenge you to explain why you think it's wrong to question another person's religious beliefs, and why people should not be expected to be able to defend their beliefs.