pkwwjd Posted May 3, 2005 Posted May 3, 2005 I don't believe in religion. I don't know whether there is a God or not, but I can't imagine a diety micromanaging everyone's life. I think people feel more important if they believe that God is watching over them, I don't believe God does, if he exists. I believe there is an afterlife, and it is only slightly different than life. I believe when you die that you do not join any diety of your choice and you do not learn whether or not God exists, because if he does, he doesn't mingle with people-alive or dead. Since I believe in an afterlife, which is close to but different than life, it is your dead friends and relatives who work to answer your prayers, not any diety. So in effect, prayer does work, the dead acting as the angels who answer those prayers. I believe that most of religion as it currently exists on Earth is the result of alien visits and the misinterpretation of those aliens as divine figures. I don't believe in Heaven or Hell. While there may be a God, the idea of Satan's existance (other than the hockey player) is absurd to me. Basically someone looked up in the sky to devise their idea of heaven, and hell comes from the heat that you get from going towards the center of the earth, hitting lava etc. 326090[/snapback] And you know this how? I have the most widely read, historically supported ancient text to support my beliefs. You? My intent (as it was earlier in this thread) is not to be flammatory, but to point out that you find it absurd to believe in something, while telling us what you believe. If you believe something, please tell us why.
RuntheDamnBall Posted May 3, 2005 Posted May 3, 2005 What created the goo that created us? The lightning? The matter? It's all beyond our minds, folks...it's been discussed for several thousound years by many great minds. If you feel you are no more than a bacteria or a fern, and that's all it amounts to, so be it. If you look at the stars and have no awe and wonderment, so be it. That is your choice. I choose not to belive that. 326252[/snapback] I'm not sure what you mean here. There are plenty of scientists who are full of "awe and wonderment" when they look at the stars, or a pile of goo. These people are so interested in the vastness and the minutiae of our world as to devote their lives to it. And many are atheists or agnostics. One doesn't necessarily need religion to feel that our world is special. I also have a problem with the fact that a lot of religious people cite the Bible as saying we have domain over this world, where I feel we are an integral part of it, and we owe a certain responsibility to it.
pkwwjd Posted May 3, 2005 Posted May 3, 2005 Carl Sagan could...but he's dead. Basically, the "Big Bang" is a testable theory, in that you can use it to make conjectures, make observations on said conjectures, and see if the results of your observations match what the theory predicts. Theorizing a supreme being, however, is inherently untestable, as omniscience and omnipotence forbids nothing, and thus every observation can be whitewashed via the simple expression "God's will". The nature of science is empirical, the nature of belief in a supreme being is non-empirical by definition (since, after all, that's what "belief" means). Carl Sagan was a consummate empiricist, and as such would not accept the hypothesis of a supreme being simply because it's an untestable hypothesis. And I'm not saying either position is right or wrong (though it should be clear where my sympathies lean)...I'm just saying it is how it is: there's as little room for faith in science (good science, at least), as there is for empiricism in religion. 326201[/snapback] Can you point to any scientists who have conducted a "Big Bang"? The conditions surrounding a purported original big bang are IMPOSSIBLE to recreate. It is not a testable theory. Thank you for at least calling the big bang a theory instead of fact.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 3, 2005 Posted May 3, 2005 Can you point to any scientists who have conducted a "Big Bang"? The conditions surrounding a purported original big bang are IMPOSSIBLE to recreate. It is not a testable theory. Thank you for at least calling the big bang a theory instead of fact. 326608[/snapback] "Test" does not mean "set up and run an experiment". "Test" means "construct a theory, make observations related to that theory, see how well the theory explains the observations." Often, those observations are made in the context of a planned experiment (and the best theories are those that are confirmed by a planned experiment)...but not always. No one's built a star before, either, but we know they run by nuclear fusion through observation. As for calling it a "theory"...everything's a theory. A "theory" is a set of rules that to some degree explain how the world works. Some theories are better than others (e.g. Newtonian gravity is not as good a theory as General Relativity...because Relativity has been tested and shown to explain far more features of the universe far more accurately than Newtonian theory...even though Newtonian theory can be tested in the lab and most of General Relativity can only be tested through observation of the natural world.) That goes for every theory you might think up...global warming, evolution, genetics, even the idea that the desk in front of me is solid is nothing more than a theory (though a damned good one, considering my keyboard hasn't fallen through it. Still, at some scales, that theory breaks down.) Fundamentally, the argument of "God vs. science" isn't an argument about God or science. It's a meaningless debate between a bunch of yahoos running around jabbering at each other in total ignorance of what the nature of both "God" and "science" actually are. (The Big Bang, by the way, is a pretty good theory...but with a few major holes, not the least of which is its inability to predict anything before a certain time. It's a theory that asks one to accept on faith that a certain undefined condition existed at a certain time...which is bad science. But at some point, someone will either modify the theory to explain that unknown, or come up with a better one. That's science.)
ch19079 Posted May 3, 2005 Posted May 3, 2005 You raise some interesting food for thought. Here is some more. If Adam and Eve were the begining, they had Caine and Abel right, who did they mate with to propogate the species? oops, those Mother f---er's Sorry, I have a problem with this whole story. 326495[/snapback] i read that eve wasnt even adams first wife. god created adam and a woman (whoes name i dont remember). adam wanted her to do what he said. she said hell no, god made me in his image too, so your not better than me, and i dont have to listen to you and she left (parafrazing of course). so god made another wife from his rib called eve. (i cant remember her name though... )
Reuben Gant Posted May 3, 2005 Posted May 3, 2005 Interestingly enough, I am reading Cardinal Ratzinger's (benedict XVI) homilies on creation. He does not take the Genesis story to be literal but puts it into the context of the Babylonian captivity... Foremost he says that it is telling us God is the creator... "God shines through the reasonableness of his creation. Physics and biology, and the natural sciences in general, have given us a new and unheard-of creation account with new images, which let us recognize the face of the Creator." -Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger Of course this is the description of a man of faith, but I think mostly it is America that thinks that religion and science are so at odds.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 3, 2005 Posted May 3, 2005 Interestingly enough, I am reading Cardinal Ratzinger's (benedict XVI) homilies on creation. He does not take the Genesis story to be literal but puts it into the context of the Babylonian captivity... Foremost he says that it is telling us God is the creator... "God shines through the reasonableness of his creation. Physics and biology, and the natural sciences in general, have given us a new and unheard-of creation account with new images, which let us recognize the face of the Creator." -Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger Of course this is the description of a man of faith, but I think mostly it is America that thinks that religion and science are so at odds. 326702[/snapback] I completely agree with him...and with you. It seems a uniquely American thing (probably an unfortunate byproduct of the Scopes trial) to believe that because scientific explanations of the world are completely at odds with the book of Genesis, science must therefore completely deny the existence of a supreme being. That ain't necessarily so...in fact, I'd uncharitably suggest that hypothesis (or its converse: that a belief in God denies recognition of science) is simply a product of ignorant parochialism.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 3, 2005 Posted May 3, 2005 You raise some interesting food for thought. Here is some more. If Adam and Eve were the begining, they had Caine and Abel right, who did they mate with to propogate the species? oops, those Mother f---er's Sorry, I have a problem with this whole story. 326495[/snapback] (Genesis 4:14-16) In Genesis, after Cain kills Abel, God exiles him...after which he marries. At that point, according to Genesis, there's three people on the planet: Adam, Eve, and Cain. Who'd he marry? Personally, I think Genesis is a morality play, plain and simple.
Where the Buffalo Roam Posted May 3, 2005 Posted May 3, 2005 And Man created god because he needed god. The logical argument for god is this: Since you cannot prove that anything does not exist because you cannot observe all of the universe at the same time, unless of course you are god, god exists. Now for fun consider this: Since I can not prove that bigfoot does not exist, and I cannot prove that bigfoot is not god, god is bigfoot.
Reuben Gant Posted May 3, 2005 Posted May 3, 2005 Since I can not prove that bigfoot does not exist, and I cannot prove that bigfoot is not god, god is bigfoot. 326759[/snapback] Wait, I know that Lee Majors fought with Bigfoot a few times. He and Oscar Goldman know all about Bigfoot. So I think the first pillar of your religion can be... "There is no god but Bigfoot, and Lee Majors (the six-million Dollar Man) is his prophet."
Minotaur Posted May 3, 2005 Posted May 3, 2005 well i would believe a biologist cus if i ask any bioligist a question they will all give me the same answer. but if you ask a religious leader a question, he may give you a completly diffrent respose than other religious leaders. 326603[/snapback] Didn't all geologists believe the world was flat at one time, too? All I'm saying is that the pope knows more about religion than I do. Therefore, I'm more inclined to believe him than my wife when it comes to religion. There's a higher probability of the pope being right than my wife (Thank God she doesn't read this board).
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 3, 2005 Posted May 3, 2005 "There is no god but Bigfoot, and Lee Majors (the six-million Dollar Man) is his prophet." 326789[/snapback] Personally, I can think of worse things to base a religion on...like "You must shoot at ATF agents while I have sex with your teenage daughters" or "You must all kill yourselves so the spaceship behind the comet can take us to the next level" or "You must release Sarin gas on the Tokyo subway"...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 3, 2005 Posted May 3, 2005 Didn't all geologists believe the world was flat at one time, too? All I'm saying is that the pope knows more about religion than I do. Therefore, I'm more inclined to believe him than my wife when it comes to religion. There's a higher probability of the pope being right than my wife (Thank God she doesn't read this board). 326791[/snapback] There's something I find very disturbing about the concepts of "right" and "wrong" in this post...but I can't quite put my finger on it...
Reuben Gant Posted May 3, 2005 Posted May 3, 2005 Didn't all geologists believe the world was flat at one time, too? 326791[/snapback] This is a huge misperception. Nobody in the West believed the world was flat. From Plato, through Boetheus, to Dante. All thought the world was round. I think the idea that the world was flat, come from 2nd grade teachers.
BuckeyeBill Posted May 3, 2005 Posted May 3, 2005 i read that eve wasnt even adams first wife. (i cant remember her name though... 326649[/snapback] Um... this isn't from the Bible.
nero47 Posted May 3, 2005 Posted May 3, 2005 Not suggesting u need a higher power to cope, just curious. Because I'm doing a hypothetical research proposal, and my theory is that "Believing" would help people to cope, and accelerate the grieving process. 325186[/snapback] The Bible tells us that every creature knows that there is God, for he has placed that knowledge in every heart. Therefore, everyone is without excuse in the exercise of their life pertaining to right and wrong.
Stussy109 Posted May 3, 2005 Author Posted May 3, 2005 Its crazy how much difference of opinion there is when it comes to a topic like this. I for one believe all of us have to agree to disagree, because there is no such thing as "Right" and "Wrong." Those terminologies are relative to one's situation, culture, etc. I support the idea that people use historical books for guidance such as the bible, koran, etc... However, I don't think people should live and die by their words. I like to look for "God" in my own ways. Thats just my opinion and I'm sure some will think that is "wrong" and others who feel it is "right." Thanks for all the action on this post. One thing is for sure, life is too darn short
ch19079 Posted May 3, 2005 Posted May 3, 2005 Um... this isn't from the Bible. 326817[/snapback] as i have stated befor in this thread, there HAS been things REMOVED and/or left out of the bible many read today...... some priest somewhere said, "that doest sound right", and riped out the pages... its true... i think thats part of a gospal that was left out....
Fan in San Diego Posted May 3, 2005 Posted May 3, 2005 Interestingly enough, I am reading Cardinal Ratzinger's (benedict XVI) homilies on creation. He does not take the Genesis story to be literal but puts it into the context of the Babylonian captivity... Foremost he says that it is telling us God is the creator... "God shines through the reasonableness of his creation. Physics and biology, and the natural sciences in general, have given us a new and unheard-of creation account with new images, which let us recognize the face of the Creator." -Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger Of course this is the description of a man of faith, but I think mostly it is America that thinks that religion and science are so at odds. 326702[/snapback] I agree. Science and religion are not at odds but in parallel. Who is to say God did not set the big bang in motion and let evolution take place. That was all his/her plan. Even if God came to earth today to explain the inner workings of how the universe does it thing we still couldnt understand. So why would he try to explain these things 5000 years ago ? Just for the record. I think all religions are wrong for the most part and we all are in for a big surprize when we cross on over to the other side. Although Christianity does set good morals for unfettered civilized living for the most part.
ch19079 Posted May 3, 2005 Posted May 3, 2005 The Bible tells us that every creature knows that there is God, for he has placed that knowledge in every heart. Therefore, everyone is without excuse in the exercise of their life pertaining to right and wrong. 326825[/snapback] i might be beating a dead horse here but..: "the bible tells us" does not make it so. i learned right from wrong from my mommy
Recommended Posts