How do you feel about God.

[willderphil]

When scientists can turn an allele or two on or off and create functioning mammary glands on a chicken (and chicks that use those mammary glands), then I might believe in the theory of evolution. Until then, I just cannot accept the fact that for millions or billions of years, the first creatures from some unknown origin (what do the evolution theorists say mammals evolved from again?) wasted a great deal of bodily energy on developing mammary glands that served no purpose (they were egg layers or gave live birth to babies that could survive on their own) until finally they were able to function, and then they had to create the urge to stick around and care for their young as well as produce offspring that didn't go off on their own but rather stayed with Mom to nurse off her. It actually sounds like the development of mammals per the theory of evolution would have been selected against, not for. Microevolution, yes, but the creation of all the diverse species in the world and the complexity and specificity of many of those species just can't be explained by the theory of evolution.

About evolution picking against mammals being created. Not really, its just a different way. Animals that the newborn takes care of itself have to put a lot more energy in making a lot more babies to get one to survive where as mammals put a lot of energy into a smaller amount of babies even after birth to make sure they survive. Really it's just using your energy in different ways.

 

[willderphil]

I don't care if she worships one eyed one horned flying purple people eaters, she is ok in my book.

You should have said the flying spaghetti monster. Hail his noodley appendages. Ramen

http://www.venganza.org/

 

[SnakeAround]

FYI Science can't talk about things that are supernatural the mere fact that they are supernatural (don't follow the laws of nature) means that you can't use science to prove or disprove Gods existence

That's how religious people escape a rational discussion about it and silence their adversary. The idea that God is supernatural is an assumption, you can't prove that he is supernatural only assume, because he does not fit into natural laws, that is what you say yourself.

 

[Kokopelli]

Oh we're here again?
I wonder what it is about human being as a whole(myself included) that drives us to be so vocal about our opinions... and so judgmental towards people who reached different conclusions.

As I see it- studies showed a positive connection between having faith in something and a higher quality of life/ ability to recover from disease and what not.

If there's no God, we should do whatever it is that keeps us happy- for some, faith definitely does that. Be it just a Placebo effect or a higher power, it doesn't matter.

If there -is- a God and an afterlife then great for everyone, and if not, at least they did whatever made them happy along the ride.

We should all stop trying to impose our belief systems on others- a belief is science is a belief, based on what science consider to be proof and so forth. People who believe in God have their own proofs. One is based on logic, the other is based on spirituality, and both do not speak the same language... it's not a mathematical equation, you can't disprove one by using the other... so just let it rest.

Live and let live, do whatever keeps you happy as long as it does not impose or harm others... and that's it really.

Faith or lack of doesn't make anyone better or worse- I know tons of people who do not believe in God and are very moral, and many who do believe in God but are less so.

Religion has been rather forceful over the course of history, and that's an obvious scar on humanity as a whole and we all have strong feelings against religious oppression.... I tend to believe that this is at least in part, the underlying cause for the strong opposition to the concept in many nowdays.

The Scientists though... that too, is a bit of an elite'ist group who think they are better than those who prefer to have faith and choose to believe "even in the face of evidence to the contrary". I find that among those who do not believe, you will find the same seed of "higher than thou".

We're free to make a choice... rather than trying to nip at the heels of someone who simply made a decision that is different than yours, oppose those who try to take away this freedom by imposing their choices on everyone.

All of the above is true to myself as it is to anyone else- I was not directing anyone in particular... just a long rambling

 

[willderphil]

I think I read somewhere that "goldilocks" planets are actually quite common, and throughout our galaxy alone there would be an estimated 300 other planets with life on them, and some fraction of that would be intelligent life.. Combine that with the billions of other galaxies, and the billions of other universes... Perhaps the gods or God we hear about, no matter what it may be, is a being from one of these other planets. Perhaps we were long ago visited by travelers from one of these planets and early humans mistook them for Gods, after all, we saw this during WWII when we landed on islands- the native people had never seen airplanes before, and we brought them food and provisions, but once we left when the war ended, they began building airplane models out of trees in the hopes that we, "the gods", would return. An entire religion was based off of our own modern technology, it was just unfamiliar to these native people. I could see how we could have been confused in the same way in our pasts. I also struggle with the fact that the Christian God, which I most often hear being referred to as the one true God, could possibly be, when Christianity and its God are relatively new- I would have to say, that if I was religious, I'd have to follow the very first religion ever, not later ones. I guess I just have a difficult time imagining that an omnipotent God would have a reason to create us or our planet. What is the point? That is something I struggle with, what point would there have been to creation? I personally cannot understand it, this is one of the reasons why I believe that we are a result of natural processes, and that these process take place now, and have been taking place, and will continue taking place, for trillions of years within space and time. I know that many struggle with how something came from nothing, this I cannot answer. I don't think science can yet, we are still a young species and have plenty more learning to do.

Judaism is actually quite old and may be even older then Hinduism. Judaism was first written down 1,400 BCE but there are oral traditions that predate that by hundreds of years. Apparently Abraham lived about 1,800 BCE While Hinduism was written down 1,500 BCE. Since Christianity is based on Judaism then it follows that it too can be true.

 

[Tara80]

Actually being here can be very probable. Think of space. What if space is infinite with an infinite amount of matter. There is not an infinite amount of ways that matter can arrange itself so you eventually come upon every single way that matter can arrange itself. Including repeats of our world exactly down to the last atom. I mean this is pretty crazy but I personally think it would be more crazy if space has an end. There is an other hypothesis that space loops kind of like the earth but I can't get my head around how something can both have no borders and still loop. I think the hypothesis that space is infinite is the most believable personally.

I don't think we have the capacity to fathom it honestly, at least not for a long while. I actually have my own theories about space and 'what's really out there'.
Something deriving from nothing, expanding, coalescing - or on the contrary, always existing is an impossible task for us to grasp. I believe it has to do with other dimensions, energy.. other physical planes but something way beyond our existence. If we live/exist in this plane, who's to say that there aren't other beings in other planes?
These are very interesting concepts that I really enjoy reading and thinking on.
The thought of an afterlife is a somewhat tricky topic as well. When you die - your brain matter dies, your synapses stop transmitting. Essentially WHO you are (think of your brain as a hard drive, a storage device which holds your identity) ceases to be.

 

[v_various]

The thought that some higher being created the earth and all it's animals, and then said to himself, "you know what? I guess I cooooould make them all vegetarian creatures, but wouldn't it be so much better if they hunted, killed, and ate EACH OTHER?! Perfect!"

And don't even get me started on parasites

"You'll likely survive your eyestalks being ripped off, and eventually, your entire face will grow back...as will the parasites. You're lucky evolution never granted you the intellect to comprehend your new existence, enslaved by a worm in your brain to have your eyes chewed off again and again."

It's terrifying to contemplate anyone creating these things on purpose.

I grew up in a United church, stopped going around 14 years old (critical thinking skills kicked in, lol). Here is an info graphic about bible contradictions some you might find amusing:

http://www.fastcodesign.com/1662676/infographic-of-the-day-what-the-bible-got-wrong

 

[fyrefocks]

I'm just curious, do any of you know how the current Bible was put together? I mean, how the stories Matthew, Mark, Luke, John came to be in the Bible?

 

[jackrat]

I can't help but wonder,if Jesus came back,how would we put him down this time? Maybe lethal injection,put it on pay-per-view. Make a million. I'd watch it. Maybe just give him to the Muslims and get them off our backs.

 

[Forcedexile]

well considering he's already died for our sins I don't think someone would try to kill him again. If he ever did come back then I think he would finally answer all the questions about religion and leave it at that.

 

[jackrat]

The fact that they could nail him to a piece of wood and he died like any other human pretty much answers any questions I might have.

 

[AliCat37]

Judaism is actually quite old and may be even older then Hinduism. Judaism was first written down 1,400 BCE but there are oral traditions that predate that by hundreds of years. Apparently Abraham lived about 1,800 BCE While Hinduism was written down 1,500 BCE. Since Christianity is based on Judaism then it follows that it too can be true.

I'm mean the very first religion, I can find stuff dating back to 5,000 BCE from the Sumerians, but not much older, as they were the first to use writing. Oral traditions are harder to date.

 

[fyrefocks]

well considering he's already died for our sins I don't think someone would try to kill him again. If he ever did come back then I think he would finally answer all the questions about religion and leave it at that.

Not my sins, no He didn't. I didn't ask, and I'm sick of hearing about how guilty I should feel because of His "sacrifice".

 

[jackrat]

Jesus Christ invented sin. Then his "father",good parent that he was,sat back and watched them nail him up.

 

[MegF.]

I believe that there is an energy that started everything but I don't believe that there's an entity who gives a rats patooty what we do here on Earth. I think we're a grand experiment......working in health care I just see too much evidence that God has no hand in anything....disasters' abound....I think the native americans had a better grasp of the almighty energy...

 

[Forcedexile]

Not my sins, no He didn't. I didn't ask, and I'm sick of hearing about how guilty I should feel because of His "sacrifice".

it was a half joke anyway lol. In an earlier post you can see that I say I'm atheist. I was just making a point lol.

 

[SnakeAround]

I have been readign a bit on http://www.venganza.org/about/ and I think this piece of text is valuable to both believers and non beleivers to be able to agree to disagree;

"For many religions, acceptance is due to the time it has been around and due to the number of people who already follow it. For potential followers it’s often less a consideration of evidence, and more a judgment that the collective group of followers is better informed. That millions or billions of people already follow this religion is strong social proof that there is something to it. The larger the group and the longer it has been around, the more pronounced the effect.

But nonbelievers are overreaching when they dismiss the phenomenon of religion as wrong and useless because it so often lacks a basis in evidence. The fact that millions of people get something positive out of a religion – even if it is based in superstition – *does* mean something. But that’s not to say it’s True, only that it has Value. For many people, religion is about being part of a community and being part of something bigger and more important than themselves.

Nonbelievers would be better off criticizing only on the negative, damaging parts of religion, and being less judgmental about the idea of religion in general. Nonbelievers get hung up asking for evidence when really we should be looking at why does religion thrive despite evidence? We should be pushing the idea that faith is not equivalent to evidence-based-reasoning without insisting that it’s inferior, only that they are different ways of seeing the world. And that the problems happen when these world views clash. "

 

[jackrat]

I have been readign a bit on http://www.venganza.org/about/ and I think this piece of text is valuable to both believers and non beleivers to be able to agree to disagree;

"For many religions, acceptance is due to the time it has been around and due to the number of people who already follow it. For potential followers it’s often less a consideration of evidence, and more a judgment that the collective group of followers is better informed. That millions or billions of people already follow this religion is strong social proof that there is something to it. The larger the group and the longer it has been around, the more pronounced the effect.

But nonbelievers are overreaching when they dismiss the phenomenon of religion as wrong and useless because it so often lacks a basis in evidence. The fact that millions of people get something positive out of a religion – even if it is based in superstition – *does* mean something. But that’s not to say it’s True, only that it has Value. For many people, religion is about being part of a community and being part of something bigger and more important than themselves.

Nonbelievers would be better off criticizing only on the negative, damaging parts of religion, and being less judgmental about the idea of religion in general. Nonbelievers get hung up asking for evidence when really we should be looking at why does religion thrive despite evidence? We should be pushing the idea that faith is not equivalent to evidence-based-reasoning without insisting that it’s inferior, only that they are different ways of seeing the world. And that the problems happen when these world views clash. "

Why does religion flourish despite evidence to the contrary? Because the idea of a benevolent god figure is nothing but a mother's teat that humans can run to when the trials of life scare and intimidate them.

 

[Nova_C]

I don't think that's necessarily fair, Jackrat. Religion means a lot of different things to different people.

The one universal criticism I make of it, though, that I'm not willing to dilute is the fact that religion encourages people to suppress critical thinking. You are not supposed to question your god and, in many cases, your religious leaders. To me, the logical conclusion of this is willful ignorance and that conclusion is borne out by the state of modern fundamentalism.

 

[fyrefocks]

I can understand why people are religious, really, I can. For some people, they just need something to believe in to get them through the day. For others, they need justification for why life is terrible. Some people's lives are actually enhanced by it, the sense of belonging that comes with it. I'm good with that. And of course some people really do belong in a straight jacket. You don't preach to me and I won't preach to you about how I think you're a moron.

The preachers are the worst of you. And no, I don't mean the man who talks to you every Sunday. I'm talking about the jackass at the bus hub who screams at the top of his lungs, or the guy on our college campus who is calling passersby harlots because they are wearing those lovely skinny jeans, or a low cut shirt. I, for one, love the harlots.

And now I've forgotten the point of this post. Silly harlots...

Someone asked why people only focus on the downsides, the bad things from the bible. Well, this is why I do it- Because you can't tell me that God says homosexuality is bad whilst the Catholic Church sweeps child molestation in the religious rug. Not only is that homosexuality, it's rape of a minor, which is like a million times double dog sin worse. God asked Abraham to kill his own son (do I have that right, or did God ask another dude to do it?), but a woman who wants an abortion because she doesn't want to carry the child of rape to term is going to Hell for murder?

I could go on, but frankly all this talk is depressing the out of me. If God is real, I'd like to meet him so I can punch him in the face.