btw there is no god

[Gregrios]

I've got a question. Can you find anywhere in the Bible where God contradicts himself? I'll save you some time and give you the answer. It's no and there's a good reason for that.

"thou shalt not kill"

I'm going to need a little more than that there stud.

[Gregrios]

To answer your question DM, these verses are not spoken by God or Jesus but only by men. Therefore out of man's natural folly, perfection cannot be expected. The basic message stays the same but it's true that the minor details do not coincide. I can't say I know for sure but this contradiction seems like a very common error that we are all familiar with. Ever hear of the story of the fish that kept on getting bigger?

[Dancing Mustard]

To answer your question DM, these verses are not spoken by God or Jesus but only by men. Therefore out of man's natural folly, perfection cannot be expected.

So you're saying that every single passage of the Bible is likely to be fallible as it's all prone to human error? That, essentially, everything that anybody wrote about 'God' in the book on which you base your faith might be improperly remembered, poorly recorded, distorted by emotion, and spoiled by poor translation?

The basic message stays the same

Not really... I mean, the appearance of angels isn't something that I'd call a 'minor detail'.

hear of the story of the fish that kept on getting bigger?

Yes actually, I did. I couldn't help but think that it sounded awfully like that story where the fish got divided into 10,000 pieces.

What do you reckon Greggy? Might that be another fish story that's become distorted over time? Might it in fact be the case that the said fish wasn't actually divided into 10,000 pieces and that that number only come about after seventy years (when the Bible actually got written) of repeated oral telling?

After all, we all know how prone stories about fish (and fishermen) are to being falsified, don't we?

Can you find anywhere in the Bible where God contradicts himself?

Yes I can.

Personally, I found it somewhat contradictory that he spent the first act of the book telling everybody that he was a wrathful and vengeance seeking kind of guy, but then in act two he suddenly changed his tune completely and told everybody that he was all about the love, forgiveness and compassion. Quite the contradiction there, and not about a 'minor detail' either.

But there we go, mistakes from God probably shouldn't surprise us that much. After all, God's only human really, isn't he?

[StiffMittens]

I've got a question. Can you find anywhere in the Bible where God contradicts himself? I'll save you some time and give you the answer. It's no and there's a good reason for that.

How about this one:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=4&chapter=22&version=31
In this passage, the Israelites have settled in the plains of Moab, and the locals are worried that the Israelites are going to ravaged the land. So they send for this holy man Balaam and offer to pay him to curse the Israelites. God tells Balaam to refuse because the Israelites are bessed. The Moabites ask Balaam to curse the Israelites a second time, and this time God tells Balaam to go with them, but to only say what He tells him to. Then Balaam saddles his donkey and rides of to Moab. For some reason, this makes God very angry and he stands in the road with his sword drawn to oppose Balaam's progress. After a brief confrontation (where God says he would have killed Balaam if his donkey hadn't run off the road in fright), God again tells Balaam to continue on his way, but to only speak the words that God provides to him. So they get to Moab and three times Balaam instructs the Moabites to build altars and make sacrifices. The God visits Balaam and tells him what to say. The second time he does this, God (speaking through Balaam) says: God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind.

Clearly, God changed his mind several times in this story.

Since you have provided the link so generously, it will be very easy for people to compare the verse with what you wrote and will therefore see your deception.

Compare away. There is no deception. Show us all where and how I have deceived anyone in any way.

[StiffMittens]

I've got a question. Can you find anywhere in the Bible where God contradicts himself? I'll save you some time and give you the answer. It's no and there's a good reason for that.

"thou shalt not kill"

I'm going to need a little more than that there stud.

Okay, in Exodus 20, God enumerates the ten commandments ("Thou shalt not kill" being fourth on the list, I think), but Exodus 32 describes how Moses came down from the mountain and discovered what wickedness the people had been up to, prompting Moses to say:

"Whoever is for the LORD, come to me." And all the Levites rallied to him.

Then he said to them, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.' " The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died. Then Moses said, "You have been set apart to the LORD today, for you were against your own sons and brothers, and he has blessed you this day."

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=2&chapter=32&version=31

So either God has contradicted his commandment, or Moses was a liar and a deceiver.

[daddy1gringo]

I've got a question. Can you find anywhere in the Bible where God contradicts himself? I'll save you some time and give you the answer. It's no and there's a good reason for that.

"thou shalt not kill"

I'm going to need a little more than that there stud.

Okay, in Exodus 20, God enumerates the ten commandments ("Thou shalt not kill" being fourth on the list, I think), but Exodus 32 describes how Moses came down from the mountain and discovered what wickedness the people had been up to, prompting Moses to say:

"Whoever is for the LORD, come to me." And all the Levites rallied to him.

Then he said to them, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.' " The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died. Then Moses said, "You have been set apart to the LORD today, for you were against your own sons and brothers, and he has blessed you this day."

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=2&chapter=32&version=31

So either God has contradicted his commandment, or Moses was a liar and a deceiver.

Ok, mittens, that's a fair statement, and a source of confusion for a lot of people.

The Hebrew word used in the commandment, raw-tsakh, is rarely used in the Bible. It is not the same word used when speaking of killing the sacrificial animals, killing someone in war, or killing someone as capital punishment as a result of proof of guilt. Outside of the commandment, raw-tsakh and its derivatives are pretty much only used for patently criminal killing, for wrong motives. For that reason in many modern translations it is translated "You shall not (commit) murder." Killing someone as the result of a judgment by a judge who "sees in secret" doesn't qualify. Some would say war and capital punishment are still murder, others would not, but it is far from a "smoking gun" (no pun intended) of a contradiction.

Hope that clears things up.

[Dancing Mustard]

Ok, mittens, that's a fair statement, and a source of confusion for a lot of people.

The Hebrew word used in the commandment, raw-tsakh, is rarely used in the Bible. It is not the same word used when speaking of killing the sacrificial animals, killing someone in war, or killing someone as capital punishment as a result of proof of guilt. Outside of the commandment, raw-tsakh and its derivatives are pretty much only used for patently criminal killing, for wrong motives. For that reason in many modern translations it is translated "You shall not (commit) murder." Killing someone as the result of a judgment by a judge who "sees in secret" doesn't qualify. Some would say war and capital punishment are still murder, others would not, but it is far from a "smoking gun" (no pun intended) of a contradiction.

Hope that clears things up.

Now that's an interesting response.

However, I still find myself slightly unconvinced by your line of argument.

You say that 'raw-tsakh' is a word that describes acts such as murder, but not "killing the sacrificial animals, killing someone in war, or killing someone as capital punishment as a result of proof of guilt". However, the Bible tells us that Moses came down from Sinai, took one look at the camp, then (without a trial occuring) said; "Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor".

Now, maybe this is just me, but if I heard somebody say "Go grab a knife, then go kill your brother, friends and neighbours", I don't think that it would be unreasonable for me to conclude that he was attempting to incite murder. Sure, it'd be murder in which your victim was likely to be armed, and a murder conducted at the same time as a lot of other similar murders, but it would certainly be murder. Furthermore, it would certainly not be describable as 'capital punishment' or 'an act of war'... what with the whole event occuring in the absence of any kind of prior trial, or without any kind of common enemy.

Don't get me wrong, 'raw-tsakh' is an interesting word. But it doesn't change the fact that God apparently told Moses to incite a grand-melee in which vast numbers of bona fide murders were committed. I still think that, even with the amended 'raw-tsakh' reading, God told Moses to tell other people to break one of his commandments in a fairly blatant fashion.

Fascinated to hear your response on the subject, but not convinced of your argument yet.

[daddy1gringo]

Fair enough, kinetic condiment. Remember I don't claim to be able to prove to you that it is true, just that the many apparent contradictions are at least open to legitimate debate and discussion, and you don't have to throw out your brain to believe.

[daddy1gringo]

In answer to your further objection: Presumably Moses, who had a fairly open channel with YHWH, checked with the Big Guy first, and communicated to the faithful that this was a righteous judgment from the highest court they were being told to carry out.

[daddy1gringo]

In answer to the one about the women at the tomb, the gospels that only mention 1 and 2 people never say there weren't others. One tells the story of Mary going to the tomb, another mentions someone going with her, a third found it worthwhile to mention Salome as well. The Luke account mentions neither names or numbers and could refer to only the same 3 in Mark.

There are several cases like that. One account of a leper being healed in one gospel is widely held to refer to the same event as another gospel that mentions that he had 9 companions, in order to make the point that the others didn't come back to thank Jesus.

One of the things about which there is room for debate among believers is to what degree God involved the knowledge and personality of the writers. I'm currently studying with some very liberal Presbyterian professors from Universidad Interamericana, who believe, as apparently Greg does, that He let them put mistakes in there, but still engineered the Bible we have to be the words that direct us to Him. Personally I don't buy that, nor do I buy the other end of the scale who believe that He sort of took over completely, like "automatic writing."

Each writer had particular things he intended to communicate, and particular people he intended to communicate them to. My take is that God chose and prepared the individuals with their personalities and experiences, then inspired and guided them to come out with the results he wanted. The 4 gospels provide a multi-dimensional view of Jesus and his works. Kind of like the difference between a telescope and binoculars, X2.

Anyway, you don't have to buy my take either. My point is still that you don't have to throw out your brain to believe.

Give JJM a break. He's apparently very young. You gotta give him points for chutzpah.

[SultanOfSurreal]

I've got a question. Can you find anywhere in the Bible where God contradicts himself? I'll save you some time and give you the answer. It's no and there's a good reason for that.

"thou shalt not kill"

I'm going to need a little more than that there stud.

Okay, in Exodus 20, God enumerates the ten commandments ("Thou shalt not kill" being fourth on the list, I think), but Exodus 32 describes how Moses came down from the mountain and discovered what wickedness the people had been up to, prompting Moses to say:

"Whoever is for the LORD, come to me." And all the Levites rallied to him.

Then he said to them, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.' " The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died. Then Moses said, "You have been set apart to the LORD today, for you were against your own sons and brothers, and he has blessed you this day."

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=2&chapter=32&version=31

So either God has contradicted his commandment, or Moses was a liar and a deceiver.

Ok, mittens, that's a fair statement, and a source of confusion for a lot of people.

The Hebrew word used in the commandment, raw-tsakh, is rarely used in the Bible. It is not the same word used when speaking of killing the sacrificial animals, killing someone in war, or killing someone as capital punishment as a result of proof of guilt. Outside of the commandment, raw-tsakh and its derivatives are pretty much only used for patently criminal killing, for wrong motives. For that reason in many modern translations it is translated "You shall not (commit) murder." Killing someone as the result of a judgment by a judge who "sees in secret" doesn't qualify. Some would say war and capital punishment are still murder, others would not, but it is far from a "smoking gun" (no pun intended) of a contradiction.

Hope that clears things up.

and all those babies god killed to make the pharaoh sad? or maybe we could discuss the hundreds of thousands more killed by the deluge.

[THE ARMY]

We can prove that there is a god. The proof is that the majority of people in the world have written stories and evidence depicting God(s) from their ancestors times.

Now atheist, what proof do you have again?

[Snorri1234]

We can prove that there is a god. The proof is that the majority of people in the world have written stories and evidence depicting God(s) from their ancestors times.

So which of those depictions is the real god?

[FarangDemon]

Maybe this is a subject for another thread, but I have never seen any definitive proof of any sort of personified deity. If anyone has some, I would love to see it.

Well that's a fair question, and it may sound strange to you, but I agree with you.

As I said earlier in this thread,

I believe Science and pure logic are inconclusive on this subject. Whether a person decides to believe or not believe, he does so based on something else, then takes the facts and fits them into his own point of view.

Think of it, if God made it inescapably undeniable, what would he get? Millions more people acknowledging his existence and going through some rituals who really didn't want to. Trust me, he's already got more of that than he could ever want. No, I think he left it that if you don't want to believe in him, you don't have to. He's into relationship, not numbers.

It's clear to me at least that there's more to us and the universe than what logic and science can account for. Are you married? Is what you feel for your wife just a product of social norms, herd instinct and reproductive drive? (If you think so, be honest and tell her so, and see if you get any tonight) Do you have children? Is what you feel for them totally explained by biology?

The confusion comes when people mistake a conviction beyond reason with a conviction against reason.

Of course, believing that there is "something more" doesn't necessarily mean that it is the personal God of Judeo-Christian tradition, but it can lead to an honest search for just who or what that "something" is. It is in that honest search that he finds you.

Like I said, he's into relationship, not numbers.

Look, man, you are talking about the motives of an imaginary being. Imaginary means something that only exists in the minds of certain humans and cannot be objectively observed by anybody else.

True, science can't fully describe the human experience because the heart of the human experience is consciousness, which cannot be objectively observed in its entirety. Science can only validate claims that can be objectively observed. However, mature minds should be able to accept basic facts about the origin of life, DNA, genetics and evolution (and belief systems), whatever implications they may have on "love". In the end, "love" is always whatever you understand it to be on a personal level, but just because you don't like to think about it does not somehow divorce your experience from millions of years of genetic history of the human race.

I find that the more I learn about the history of my species and life on earth, the more I value and appreciate my existence. A godless world is not a cold world. It is the exact same world as the one that godfearing people live in, but without all the made up stuff.

[FarangDemon]

We can prove that there is a god. The proof is that the majority of people in the world have written stories and evidence depicting God(s) from their ancestors times.

So which of those depictions is the real god?

THE ARMY, if it were not for the modicum of respect for the mental faculties of a fellow Brigadier, I would assume your post was an obvious troll.

In the same manner, one could "prove" that witches exist because of the universal belief in witches during the middle ages.

A "meme" is a concept developed by human societies that can be passed around to neighboring cultures, inherited by descendants, change or die out. Belief in the supernatural is a meme that is very prevalent, but this does not mean that supernatural events indeed occur. Actually, by definition, they do not occur.

[THE ARMY]

We can prove that there is a god. The proof is that the majority of people in the world have written stories and evidence depicting God(s) from their ancestors times.

So which of those depictions is the real god?

THE ARMY, if it were not for the modicum of respect for the mental faculties of a fellow Brigadier, I would assume your post was an obvious troll.

In the same manner, one could "prove" that witches exist because of the universal belief in witches during the middle ages.

A "meme" is a concept developed by human societies that can be passed around to neighboring cultures, inherited by descendants, change or die out. Belief in the supernatural is a meme that is very prevalent, but this does not mean that supernatural events indeed occur. Actually, by definition, they do not occur.

Some supernatural events did occur. This is why people believe in them. They are seen by our ancestors and passed down through thousands of years or more. The extreme majority of the world believe in some "thing" due to first hand experience or through reading written documents of these events. Just because one hasn't experienced something first hand doesn't mean it does not exist. I for one was not living during the Holocaust yet I still believe it and take it for fact and you do the same thing.

Despite whatever you think, the fact is, we are here because of matter. What formed that matter is other matter, and that matter is other matter. The great question is, what formed that FIRST matter, and its simple...something did. That something is what some call God and what some call another thing but they all share the same thing...that there IS something else.

[FarangDemon]

Fair enough, kinetic condiment. Remember I don't claim to be able to prove to you that it is true, just that the many apparent contradictions are at least open to legitimate debate and discussion, and you don't have to throw out your brain to believe.

Theology means throwing out the common sense part of your brain which would urge you to naturally remain skeptical about anybody's version of "God" and what "God" wants you to do (for me, my priestly class, or the secular rulers with which we've brokered a wonderful arrangement with). With that cumbersome, critical thinking part removed, it allows you to focus on irrelevant details like how many kinds of angels there are or what ancient word was used by Moses to trick everybody into believing that the most powerful God in the world was gonna go ballistic if the Israelites didn't butcher Moses' political enemies or do anything else Moses felt like ordering them to do.

I am an etymology lover, btw. But I don't disbelieve in the bible as the word of god because of contradictions that etymological inquiry could possibly clear up. I disbelieve in the bible as the word of god in the same way I disbelieve in the legitimacy or supernatural power of any supposed holy or magical text, relic or incantation.

I find it surprising whenever atheists get into discussions about the contradictions in the bible, debating obscure points, because to me this is an extremely myopic exercise.

[FarangDemon]

We can prove that there is a god. The proof is that the majority of people in the world have written stories and evidence depicting God(s) from their ancestors times.

So which of those depictions is the real god?

THE ARMY, if it were not for the modicum of respect for the mental faculties of a fellow Brigadier, I would assume your post was an obvious troll.

In the same manner, one could "prove" that witches exist because of the universal belief in witches during the middle ages.

A "meme" is a concept developed by human societies that can be passed around to neighboring cultures, inherited by descendants, change or die out. Belief in the supernatural is a meme that is very prevalent, but this does not mean that supernatural events indeed occur. Actually, by definition, they do not occur.

Some supernatural events did occur. This is why people believe in them. They are seen by our ancestors and passed down through thousands of years or more. The extreme majority of the world believe in some "thing" due to first hand experience or through reading written documents of these events. Just because one hasn't experienced something first hand doesn't mean it does not exist. I for one was not living during the Holocaust yet I still believe it and take it for fact and you do the same thing.

Despite whatever you think, the fact is, we are here because of matter. What formed that matter is other matter, and that matter is other matter. The great question is, what formed that FIRST matter, and its simple...something did. That something is what some call God and what some call another thing but they all share the same thing...that there IS something else.

Ok, you can choose to believe that anything exists or happened because some people at one point said so.

I definitely believe in matter. If you want to call it god, you can. But I think it is just matter. I don't know what happened at the beginning of the universe because I didn't study physics, but I would prefer not to assume that there is an intelligent creative force simply because it fits the dogma of prevailing sects whose precepts must be unquestionably accepted by their followers (Christianity, Judaism and Islam). And if it's not an intelligent creative force, why call it god?

Don't you have to ask yourself the question of why you believe in God? Aren't you faced with the answer "Because I was taught to never question his existence by this religion." instead of "One would naturally come to form this world-view absent of religious dogma".

Because on a practical level, we only expect things to happen that have been OBSERVED to have happened before unless our OBSERVATIONS indicate that some new event will take place.

Religious people are able to function in a practical way day to day, but yet harbor fanciful notions that are totally contradictory to any precedent they have personally experienced, due to their indoctrination and inability to question various tenets of faith.

How do they do it? Simple. Human beings aren't rational. Children have evolved to believe whatever parents tell them because this makes them more likely to survive. Children who stop to think about whether or not an order issued by an elder makes sense might end up eaten by a lion or run over by a car. Another instinctive but irrational habit is to assume that various non-living entities possess intentions. It can be a practical basis for understanding the physical world to assume that the sun is actually controlled by a charioteer in the sky. This charioteer is different from normal human beings in that we cannot actually see him - therefore he is a god. Bada bing, bada boom, you have religion.

And now in the 20th century we have millions of people at each other's throats over contradictory claims laid out in competing holy books? And instead of realizing that all this is total bs, you want me to acknowledge that matter from the beginning of the universe should be called god? Wouldn't it be better for us all if all the religious took a step back from the brink and said "ok, maybe I shouldn't believe everything in this holy book just on somebody's say so because it can lead us into killing each other without even questioning it at all"? At least in secular wars we get to have debates (in some countries) to discuss the merits of a possible attack.

[mpjh]

Yawn.

[Dancing Mustard]

Some supernatural events did occur. This is why people believe in them.

Wrong.

Supernatural events did not occur, but somebody told some gullible people that they did and they believed him. Then they told their gullible children that supernatural events occured and their children believed them. That is why people believe in supernatural events.

They are seen by our ancestors and passed down through thousands of years or more.

Getting sillier and sillier with each telling, eventually culminating in the self-contradicting organised religions that we observe in the world today.

Just because one hasn't experienced something first hand doesn't mean it does not exist.

No, but the fact that there is no evidence for that thing have ever occurred, the fact that accounts of it contradict one another, the fact that those accounts have all been translated multiple times over, and the fact that all available accounts have been edited and censored on several occasions by multiple agenda-driven parties since the first transcription, does mean that it is probably not true.

I for one was not living during the Holocaust yet I still believe it and take it for fact and you do the same thing.

That's probably something to do with the large volume of readily available, consistent and irrefutable evidence that can be produced to prove that the event occurred. A feat that cannot be replicated to support the Bible (or any of the other religious texts which you, for some inexplicable reason, seem to regard as less valid).

Despite whatever you think, the fact is, we are here because of matter. What formed that matter is other matter, and that matter is other matter. The great question is, what formed that FIRST matter, and its simple...something did.

*Head explodes from the sheer force of that searing insight into the origins of the universe*

That something is what some call God and what some call another thing but they all share the same thing...that there IS something else.

What created that something else?

Behold as your own argument starts eating its own tail.

[THE ARMY]

Some supernatural events did occur. This is why people believe in them.

Wrong.

Supernatural events did not occur, but somebody told some gullible people that they did and they believed him. Then they told their gullible children that supernatural events occured and their children believed them. That is why people believe in supernatural events.

They are seen by our ancestors and passed down through thousands of years or more.

Getting sillier and sillier with each telling, eventually culminating in the self-contradicting organised religions that we observe in the world today.

Just because one hasn't experienced something first hand doesn't mean it does not exist.

No, but the fact that there is no evidence for that thing have ever occurred, the fact that accounts of it contradict one another, the fact that those accounts have all been translated multiple times over, and the fact that all available accounts have been edited and censored on several occasions by multiple agenda-driven parties since the first transcription, does mean that it is probably not true.

I for one was not living during the Holocaust yet I still believe it and take it for fact and you do the same thing.

That's probably something to do with the large volume of readily available, consistent and irrefutable evidence that can be produced to prove that the event occurred. A feat that cannot be replicated to support the Bible (or any of the other religious texts which you, for some inexplicable reason, seem to regard as less valid).

The Bible has lots of physical evidence and more is being found every year. The only reason the Holocaust has a lot of evidence is because it took place a half century ago and not thousands of years ago or even tens of thousands of years ago.

Despite whatever you think, the fact is, we are here because of matter. What formed that matter is other matter, and that matter is other matter. The great question is, what formed that FIRST matter, and its simple...something did.

*Head explodes from the sheer force of that searing insight into the origins of the universe*

That something is what some call God and what some call another thing but they all share the same thing...that there IS something else.

What created that something else?


There was something that started it all. Its only logical.

Behold as your own argument starts eating its own tail.

I may be eating at my argument but that is because we are getting off the topic i originally wrote for. I don't believe in all that religious texts have to offer for they have obvioulsy changed over time. I believe in the logical bigger picture. Someting started it all. That is all I can say to still be valid but I know for a fact that something started it all

[Dancing Mustard]

I believe in the logical bigger picture. Someting started it all. That is all I can say to still be valid but I know for a fact that something started it all

Can you really say that with the certainty that it is a fact?

Tell me: How can you prove that there was ever a start at all? How on Earth can you know that to be a fact?

[THE ARMY]

I believe in the logical bigger picture. Someting started it all. That is all I can say to still be valid but I know for a fact that something started it all

Can you really say that with the certainty that it is a fact?

Tell me: How can you prove that there was ever a start at all? How on Earth can you know that to be a fact?

MMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm now its getting interesting, lol. I can't prove there was a start to things, but to try and comprehend a theory like that is to become crazy. But again, using human logic, it is only fair to believe that there was a start.

So....

Since we can't prove or disprove that God exists in theory we must move to another standard in validating our claims. What is right and what is wrong in society today? I personally believe that whatever the majority of Humans believe in is true. 2 + 2 = 4 because the majority of people believe it. I believe in God and I know its true (for now) because the majority of people also believe in some form of God(s).

[Dancing Mustard]

I personally believe that whatever the majority of Humans believe in is true. 2 + 2 = 4 because the majority of people believe it.

So, if the majority of people believed that 2+2=5, then that would become true?

What if the majority of people believed that strange old ladies were probably witches and that the only way to deal with them was to duck them in lakes to see if they drowned? Would that make that opinion the best course of action?

Or, let's go nuts, what if the majority of people believed that the Earth was flat, would that make it true? What if those people also thought that those asserting contrary opinions should be imprisoned and tortured, would that make that right?

I believe in God and I know its true (for now) because the majority of people also believe in some form of God(s).

But the majority of those others don't believe in your God. Does that make your God false?

[THE ARMY]

I personally believe that whatever the majority of Humans believe in is true. 2 + 2 = 4 because the majority of people believe it.

So, if the majority of people believed that 2+2=5, then that would become true?

What if the majority of people believed that strange old ladies were probably witches and that the only way to deal with them was to duck them in lakes to see if they drowned? Would that make that opinion the best course of action?

Or, let's go nuts, what if the majority of people believed that the Earth was flat, would that make it true? What if those people also thought that those asserting contrary opinions should be imprisoned and tortured, would that make that right?

I believe in God and I know its true (for now) because the majority of people also believe in some form of God(s).

But the majority of those others don't believe in your God. Does that make your God false?

Correct, If the majority of people believe that 2+2=5 then that will become truth. And the same goes for your other examples. Now if you were trying to show that the reasoning behind my "Whatever the majority believes in is truth" isn't strong due to the following examples of a flat earth, or witches then you aren't doing a good job. If my history knowledge is correct it was only Europeans that believed the Earth was flat and that witches could be spotted if they floated in water, and even then it wasn't every European, so counting their population against the worlds it would probably only make up about 15% or so at the time. Therefore you cannot aggravate my claims so far by using absurb former beliefs since they do not include the majority of the population.