1730 replies to this topic

[joe77]

as i was brought up with Christianity when i was younger im almost compelled to believe in God, but through my studies of biology i find it harder and harder to believe. I find myself questioning alot of the bible, but i do believe at one point there had to be a higher entity that started the chain of events that has created our world. just my two cents

[MaidenOfMercy]

I guess I have a funny way of answering this question. I don't really believe a God could exist but for some reason I still talk to him and get angry with him all the time. I think, however, it's just an individual's attempt to try and make sense of a world that makes none, and to not feel alone when they are.

And you dig posting in old threads, don'tcha Joe Oh well, makes them recent again for me!

Edited by MaidenOfMercy, 23 September 2009 - 06:48 PM.

[Lawivido]

Through the eras the wording changed in the bible to help recruit gentiles into the religion.

If this is true, and I'm going to assume that it is since you seem pretty knowledgeable when it comes to this, then how can the bible be taken as "god's word"? Is this not how the bible is perceived by most Christians and 'subreligions' of Christianity (Catholic, Protestant... --> Quaker, etc)?

[Tetiel]

If this is true, and I'm going to assume that it is since you seem pretty knowledgeable when it comes to this, then how can the bible be taken as "god's word"? Is this not how the bible is perceived by most Christians and 'subreligions' of Christianity (Catholic, Protestant... --> Quaker, etc)?

Perceive it as God's intentions instead. I'm sure that should make more sense to you.

[darkmagegurl]

God is not restricted entirely to the Christian God right?

Even so, I do not believe in a 'higher power', nor a perfect being, it seems to me that it is merely all the good qualities objectified in the form of a person, for them to strive to become, and as time passes it becomes their 'God' and worshipped.

[Mr. Hobo]

God is not restricted entirely to the Christian God right?

Even so, I do not believe in a 'higher power', nor a perfect being, it seems to me that it is merely all the good qualities objectified in the form of a person, for them to strive to become, and as time passes it becomes their 'God' and worshipped.

But if he's not perfect (omniscient/omnipotent) why call him god? And if he's not benevolent you're fucked either way

[darkmagegurl]

God is merely a name, just as your name is Mr. Hobo. Perfection, whether existing or otherwise, has absolutely no effect. I could call it Bob if I wanted. I didn't get the second part though.

[Mr. Hobo]

I see God more as a description then a name

[onlyme]

...and the bibel more as a best seller than a guide through life.

[Metigue]

I am in no way religious,

But Yes, I believe in a deity beyond our understanding.

One that created the universe and the fundamental laws contained within.

It may not be a single entity, or even something comprehendable as an entity.

[darkmagegurl]

I personally take the stand that we, ourselves, are God, controlling our own destiny. As to everything being "perfect", coincidence. With infinite time, there is an infinite amount of possibilities for this to have happened.

[Lawivido]

I personally take the stand that we, ourselves, are God, controlling our own destiny. As to everything being "perfect", coincidence. With infinite time, there is an infinite amount of possibilities for this to have happened.

Coincidence rather than a scientific reason?

[darkmagegurl]

Just because scientists are unable to replicate life in a laboratory does not mean that there is a supreme power who did. It may just have been the wrong elements by the scientists.

Yes, coincidence.

[Bryan]

Just because scientists are unable to replicate life in a laboratory does not mean that there is a supreme power who did. It may just have been the wrong elements by the scientists.

Yes, coincidence.

We can replicate life, we do clone after all. It's just that creating matter from nothing is something that, not only haven't we answered, but is something that defies that commonly accepted laws of Physics. There are theories, but like you said, it can't be proved in a lab.

Until we answer that question, we're going to be at a standstill.

[jcrdude]

Here's the way I see it (and I've been lurking this thread without posting for a little while):

I don't believe in God or an afterlife, and while some people may view this as a negative outlook on life, I'll explain why it isn't really.

Nobody knows what lies beyond death or what greater being exists (and if they say they do, they're full of shit). Beliefs are exactly that: beliefs. The way I see it, I don't know and will not know until a few seconds after I die.

Here's my personal worst-case scenario:

I spend my life devoted to X deity waiting for Y afterlife, which involves dedicating Z amount of time. If X or Y are wrong, I've completely wasted Z time. The last thing I want is to be dropped into a hole having wasted time on something completely pointless.

As it stands (since I don't know what lies beyond)... I'm spending my days moving forward with no regrets, trying to live for each day and never regretting a thing.

With this mindset, even if I'm wrong on an afterlife, I can die happy... because there's one thing I know for certain, and that's what's happening now.

[Georgina]

I really dont know - LOADSA mixed feelings theres deffo something out there though!! I dont beleive in just being dead and black nothingness----far to weird to think about ><

[Amour]

I believe in myself mostly!

[artificial]

Just because scientists are unable to replicate life in a laboratory does not mean that there is a supreme power who did. It may just have been the wrong elements by the scientists.

Yes, coincidence.

Actually, creating amino acids in the laboratory is a pretty simple process. We can even create them in conditions similar to that of an early earth. They are more or less the building blocks of life, and once you introduce mutation and huge amounts of time, life doesn't seem so impossible.

I'm open to their being a higher power. Until someone presents me with evidence to the contrary, I'm not going to firmly argue one point or the other. However, while I think it's possible that some form of God created the universe, I do not think they hand-crafted humans or that they are watching over us. I think this is more or less the belief that Einstein adopted: a higher power may very well be responsible for the creation of universe and the laws within it, but everything else is just a consequence of the science that they created.

We know amino acids exist in space (having found them on meteors), so all you really need is a planet that can sustain life, which from my knowledge comes down to the size of the planet, distance from sun and chemical composition. When you factor in the numbers life doesn't seem so impossible. There are 200 billion stars in our galaxy. In other galaxies, there are trillions (I think the largest observable galaxy has approximately 100 trillion stars). Most stars should have planets - that's alot of planets in one galaxy. Not only that, but there's approximately 100bn galaxies in the universe. That's a lot of planets, and for people to say Earth is the only one able to sustain life is simply ignorance.

There are so many flaws with regligion. Most of the biblical books were written thousands of years ago, and from our knowledge today we know for a fact that they're all rife with inaccuracies. Discarding this, there's still the major flaw that I associate with organised religion; a perfect God should not discriminate, yet the religion you adopt is directly influenced by your contextual upbringing. For the point of argument, let's just say that Christianity is correct: over 60% of the world is not subject to Christianity, and if we take the Bible on a literal level it means that this 60% aren't receiving even a chance to get in to Heaven.

If there is one thing I have taken out of my studies, it's just how insignificant we are in relation to the rest of the universe. I can not for a second imagine a higher power watching over me when there is so much other stuff going on in the universe.

[Xcisor]

I, based on various scientific testimony on the internet right now, believe that 'god' is not the personified figure often misconceived in religion or other culture, but an omnipresent-force, if you will. I think that GOD is Consciousness. Or if you believe in the big bang theory-That God WAS that thing that came before the big bang, the little dot the blew up into the entire universe, and then expanded itself infinitely in the Universe and then will one day come back together again in what is known as the 'Big Crunch' and become that whole little dot again. Repeating this process forever. Each time it completes one cycle it has experienced all the possible experiences there are in the universe it just created and then creates another universe to expand its own experience. Thus everything technically IS god.

If you are asking do I believe in a man on a cloud with a white beard and a robe. No.

[Eskimo]

I don't know. I'm not sure why. O.o agonstic.

[nitza]

i don't....

[Myzt]

Like Xion stated, for me, the Big Bang and Big Crunch make perfect sense.  And all religion on Earth is retarded, so I disregard it. 

[Sinwin]

Unless God appears in front of me otherwise no. The god story could be made up by some people who have nothing to do.

[Kyuu]

I would just like to point out that the Big Bang theory was actually proposed by a Roman Catholic priest. The point of the theory was that you could make something out of nothing, being that the universe exploded out of something as tiny as a period.

Unless God appears in front of me otherwise no.

And I'm sure you can see electrons too.

From an anthropological point of view, science is the "religion" of the secular world. It has a creation theory, explains how the world works, why things happen which is basically the point of religion in the first place. Half the things we believe are what science "tells" us, and not because we can see it for ourselves. I'm not saying that science is wrong, I'm just saying that what you see isn't what you always get. I mean, if some mugger hit you in the back of the head and you didn't see it coming, it doesn't mean it didn't happen either.

I'm not some crazy religious nut. I'm not saying God does exist, I just believe He does. After all, I'm a little cynical as well, but we all have what lets us get by. I have no problem with the fact that other people don't believe in God, and maybe my anthropology class totally fucked up my world view, but some food for thought: secularists claim to be enlightened and open-minded, and accuse the religious as those who refuse to see the light of "logic." But doesn't this fact make them close-minded to the point of view those who are religious, since they refuse to even acknowledge it at all?

[Mr. Hobo]

I would just like to point out that the Big Bang theory was actually proposed by a Roman Catholic priest.

You left out that he was a professor of physics and an astronomer. He put much more thought into than saying that that you could make something out of nothing.

And I'm sure you can see electrons too.

Wut. Can you see the wind? Sure you can't 'see' them, but you can see their usage, in electronics, chemical bonding etc. Hell, you can feel them if you get electrocuted.

I'm just saying that what you see isn't what you always get. I mean, if some mugger hit you in the back of the head and you didn't see it coming, it doesn't mean it didn't happen either.

. That's a pretty big leap and weak comparison

But doesn't this fact make them close-minded to the point of view those who are religious, since they refuse to even acknowledge it at all?

I'm sure that if concrete evidence were found of god's existence, the majority of atheists/all of agnostics would start believing. Yes, there are some arrogant close minded people but what race/religion/country/whatever doesn't have such people?

Edited by Mr. Hobo, 19 October 2009 - 04:51 AM.