As a believer in The Creator of the worlds, I have always wondered how an atheist comes to the conclusion that God is non existent ?
Please do not think that I am going to argue your points,just curious!! :confused:

Thanks in advance.

They just don't... they see things in a more logical sense or what's logical to them perhaps. Some people just don't feel the need to believe in god... once we die we die and that's that.

Here's the way I see it:

You either have the capacity for religious faith, or you don't. Either your brain says "Sure, this thing sounds good, let's go with that." or it says, "Are you nuts? No way!" Most atheists rely on PROOF of things, evidence, science, and so on. To believe in a god, you must suspend that desire for evidence and let yourself go, so to speak. To me, that's what the "capacity for faith" is.

This of course can bring up the argument of who is right, who's belief is better, blah blah blah. To me, it doesn't matter. Religion works for you? Great, go for it. Atheism works for you? Great, go for that.

Then there are also the people who "lose" their faith; perhaps a loved one dies, they lose their job and their dog gets run over all in one day. For some people, when too many bad things happen in a row, they lose their faith because they think god wouldn't do this if he exists.

For me, I was born without the capacity for religious faith. My brain just won't let me accept it - it seems to illogical and irrational. I also see the horrible things people do to themselves and others in the name of religion, and I want no part of that.

Why would you believe? There have been so many gods over the course of humanity that we can't even keep count. Why does anyone of them deserve your worship more than the other.

Religion was invented by man to control large amounts of people. Humans evolved to live in groups of up to 150. With the invention of agricultural humans were able to live in larger groups and the leaders had trouble keeping tribes under control. So they did what every great human leader does when losing control; he invents an enemy. He invents a reason to hate and with the absence of other reasons, you hate for ideals and religion is born.

As for me (this is nauticalstar420's husband) I believe more in black and white, what I can see, and what can be proven. I do believe Jesus Christ walked the earth, but I believe after the years of the story being passed on generation to generation it was altered to what we have today.

If I have offended anybody, I do apologize. I just don't believe that a bibliological being created the entire universe and us as human beings with no proof or no hard physical evidence, but yet it can be proven by a scientific analysis and data of evolution.

Einstein thought it was possible that there is a god involved in creating the Universe.

All the embellishments about the nature of god(s), motives of god(s) and so on found in Bibles, holy scriptures and "revelations" are purely *human fantasizing*, and where humans are involved there are always open or hidden agendas. :)

Enlightnement and wisdom is the result of human minds.


Cordially,

Mary Sue

As a believer in The Creator of the worlds, I have always wondered how an atheist comes to the conclusion that God is non existent ?
Please do not think that I am going to argue your points,just curious!!!:confused:

Thanks in advance.

The way I see it, it demands the inconsistent application of the scientific method and violation of basic logic. For example, complex coded messages would be immediately attributed to intelligemt sources. But the coded instructions or messages in the DNA aren't.

Is DNA a Code? (http://www.usedtapes.com/dnanotcode.htm)

BTW
Not seeking a debate merely giving my opinion as requested by poster.

Einstein thought it was possible that there is a god involved in creating the Universe.

Every good scientist thinks this, no need to bring Einstein into it...

BTW
Not seeking a debate merely giving my opinion as requested by poster.Y'know no one here debased the other side until your post.

"inconsistent application of the scientific method"
"violation of basic logic"

Indeed.

I read this somewhere and personally enjoy the idea. It might help or it might not. Still worth a read though.

Imagine This...

God is a potato! Sounds funny and even sacrilegious, but its true!

2000 years ago the Roman and Greek empires had as the supreme being in their religious pantheon, Zeus, today the Zeus and all the other Gods of this long gone religion are called 'myths' and in about 2000 years our view of God will most likely have died out and become a 'myth' also. Disney will make a movie about God (like Samson and Hercules).

The point is even if in the future we are worshiping a giant potato as the supreme being/divine creator (God) it will still be the same 'thing' - by any other name a rose will still smell as sweet. And by any other name 'God' will still be as powerful. It is still the same 'Thing' no matter what you call it, or how you envision 'it.

This thing this 'God' is within you. It is within all of us. Call it what you will, visualise it anyway you want. Call it 'He' call it 'She' call it 'It'. It makes no difference it is that same thing no matter what name you give it. Even if you say you don't believe in it, it doesn't matter - that won't make it go away. It is a part of you, a part of all of us, a part of the whole. I'm not a religious person, I don't think of 'It' as 'God' but I know it is there cause I can feel it working in me - I ask for what I want and 'It' delivers. It is also known by other labels - The Law Of Attraction, Universal Law, Universal Mind, God, Ghosts, Spirit etc. Labels! Just labels! Call it what you want. It's real!

But Bluerose - atheists do not acknowledge the existence of a god or gods so the whatever you call it is irrelevant.

As a believer in The Creator of the worlds, I have always wondered how an atheist comes to the conclusion that God is non existent ?
Please do not think that I am going to argue your points,just curious!!!:confused:

Thanks in advance.
I think believing in god is easier than not believing. If one believes, the complexity of the universe becomes so much easier because the burden of thought is no longer there. One just say, god made it and you are done with it. I think we are so afraid of our smallness in the universe that we had to create this comfort zone to justify our weaknesses. Does this make any sense to you? I would like to know...

I think believing in god is easier than not believing. If one believes, the complexity of the universe becomes so much easier because the burden of thought is no longer there. One just say, god made it and and you are done with it. I think we are so afraid of our smallness in the universe that we had to create this comfort zone to justify our weaknesses. Does this make any sense to you? I would like to know...

It makes sense to me that some people choose religion for the sake of having some kind of anchor in the whole universe of unknown things.

As for me I found my religion to be a balance of all things physical,spiritual and scientific.

One of the reasons I asked my first question was because I cannot imagine a life without a belief in a higher Power or a day of judgement where all people receive their due.

I also wondered about how atheists really deal with death being the end of all things and that there is nothing beyond death.
How do you reconcile with the fact that humans beings in this life are unjust and they die doing injustices without punishment, then if death is the end how does the victim (who is atheist for example) find peace knowing that the perpetrator died without having his/her due?

These are questions I think about and no one need to answer in order to start an argument, but if you could explain that will be wonderful,
Thanks all:)

It makes sense to me that some people choose religion for the sake of having some kind of anchor in the whole universe of unknown things.

As for me I found my religion to be a balance of all things physical,spiritual and scientific.

One of the reasons I asked my first question was because I cannot imagine a life without a belief in a higher Power or a day of judgement where all people receive their due.

I also wondered about how atheists really deal with death being the end of all things and that there is nothing beyond death.
How do you reconcile with the fact that humans beings in this life are unjust and they die doing injustices without punishment, then if death is the end how does the victim (who is atheist for example) find peace knowing that the perpetrator died without having his/her due?

These are questions I think about and no one need to answer in order to start an arguement, but if you could explain that will be wonderful,
Thanks all:)

I understand what you are saying, and Im going to give my interpretation, although Im not atheist, my husband is, and I'm pretty sure I understand his logic...

You live to live... if you are bad, you die bad, your memory will live on through those who knew you as being bad that's it... no hell, no eternal punishment.

The idea of heaven is just a way for mortal people to cope with the concept of ending. The idea of hell is for mortal people to cope with the idea of dealing with bad people.

If you are dead by someone's hand, you need no revenge or closure, you are dead the living is what needs this... if you were good, you had a great life, people love you, and will miss you, but you are dead... if you were bad, people will dislike you and you will still be dead... do you see? He views religion as more a way to cope with hard things for the living...

If Im wrong here... someone correct me... that is just how he has explained to me...

It makes sense to me that some people choose religion for the sake of having some kind of anchor in the whole universe of unknown things.

As for me I found my religion to be a balance of all things physical,spiritual and scientific.

One of the reasons I asked my first question was because I cannot imagine a life without a belief in a higher Power or a day of judgement where all people receive their due.

Why can't death be the final "due"? Why can't the fact that if you were a horrible person in life, the memory of you being a horrible person lives on? No offence intended, but I think it's a little perverse to want someone to be punished for eternity (especially given some of the "sins" which are supposed to condem you to hell). They're dead, they can't hurt anyone anymore, so who cares? And it's bordering on self-importance to want to or think you will be rewarded for eternity for being a good person. What's wrong with being a good person while you are here and making a name for yourself that you can be proud of?


I also wondered about how atheists really deal with death being the end of all things and that there is nothing beyond death.
How do you reconcile with the fact that humans beings in this life are unjust and they die doing injustices without punishment, then if death is the end how does the victim (who is atheist for example) find peace knowing that the perpetrator died without having his/her due?

These are questions I think about and no one need to answer in order to start an argument, but if you could explain that will be wonderful,
Thanks all:)

Death can be the ultimate punishment to an atheist; once you die you can't make up for past wrongs, you can't do good deeds anymore - it's over. So we make the most of the time we are alive because when we die, that's it. No more, game over. I don't understand the need/desire for religious folks to want to continue into eternity, especially since if your eternal world is so much better than the mortal world you find ways to stay here. I'm not saying suicide is the answer, but if heaven is so great, why take life-saving measures to prolong your life on earth? I don't get it, and I suspect I never will. Anyway, if someone has committed injustices in this world and they die, then I think, "Well good! Now they can't hurt people anymore!" Death IS the due - if you die you CEASE TO BE, what's worse than that? Now I'll give you that there are some horrible people in this world who don't deserve the relief of death (I read a story about a child molester recently who assaulted a 4-month old, for example) and if they die "too soon" it comes to mind, "That's not fair", but at least that guy can't do harm anymore. He can never repent, make people forgive him, he can never have the simple joy of eating a really good steak (or whatever, lol). I don't need to think about how he's being punished for eternity because he's GONE for eternity, and that's good enough.

Hope that helps you understand a little better. Also, I commend you on taking a curiosity in atheism and trying to understand it rather than deciding we're all godless monsters. You are a far better man than several on this site...

WYou are a far better man than several on this site...

And just for info I do not believe in good goes to heaven and bad goes to Hell for eternity, I believe in a just due for each whether he be good or bad.No one is all good and no one is all bad for that matter.

Thank you for your thoughts jillianleab,
BTW I am a woman!! :)

I posted.........

"I read this somewhere and personally enjoy the idea. It might help or it might not. Still worth a read though.

Imagine This....

God is a potato! Sounds funny and even sacrilegious, but its true!

2000 years ago the Roman and Greek empires had as the supreme being in their religious pantheon, Zeus, today the Zeus and all the other Gods of this long gone religion are called 'myths' and in about 2000 years our view of God will most likely have died out and become a 'myth' also. Disney will make a movie about God (like Samson and Hercules).

The point is even if in the future we are worshiping a giant potato as the supreme being/divine creator (God) it will still be the same 'thing' - by any other name a rose will still smell as sweet. And by any other name 'God' will still be as powerful. It is still the same 'Thing' no matter what you call it, or how you envision 'it.

This thing this 'God' is within you. It is within all of us. call it what you will, visualise it anyway you want. Call it 'He' call it 'She' call it 'It'. It makes no difference it is that same thing no matter what name you give it. Even if you say you don't believe in it, it doesn't matter - that won't make it go away. It is a part of you, a part of all of us, a part of the whole. I'm not a religious person, I don't think of 'It' as 'God' but I know it is there cause I can feel it working in me - I ask for what I want and 'It' delivers. It is also known by other labels - The Law Of Attraction, Universal Law, Universal Mind, God, Ghosts, Spirit etc. Labels! Just labels! Call it what you want. It's real!"


NeedKarma,

"But Bluerose - atheists do not acknowledge the existence of a god or gods so the whatever you call it is irrelevant."


Not necessarily so. The point is that there is more to us and the world we live in. We don't need to acknowledge it as 'God', it is there anyway, whatever you want to call it. Even atheists may be willing to accept 'It' if they didn't have to call it God. And if we need to pin it down and label it we can choose one from a hidden storehouse of knowledge that is within each of us.

I wonder what atheists would make of Deism - Deistic thinking has existed since ancient times and in many cultures. The word Deism is generally used to refer to the movement toward natural theology or freethinking.

Putting aside organised and commercial religion, Deists believe in a Real Religion, a natural religion.

I have only recently learned of Deism but it might be the answer many atheists are looking for. I could be wrong. I'm still in the process of checking it out for myself.

Thank you for your thoughts jillianleab,
BTW I am a woman!!!:)

CRAP! Sorry! :eek:

As a believer in The Creator of the worlds, I have always wondered how an atheist comes to the conclusion that God is non existent ?
Please do not think that I am going to argue your points,just curious!!!:confused:

Thanks in advance.
I think that "alkalineangel" answered this one for me. I must tell you that I do not believe but I don't see anything wrong in those who do.

As a believer in The Creator of the worlds, I have always wondered how an atheist comes to the conclusion that God is non existent ?
Please do not think that I am going to argue your points,just curious!!!:confused:

Thanks in advance.
Well I say that they fined no hope in life... the fact that somehow if there was a god why would he create such a ed up world and just let it be... or religion has pushed them way with the hyporacy that they have a lot of the time... me personally I yes beleave in a god that he dose hear me and chooses when to help if it benefits the world in the end... I beleave religion can only take you so far then you have to take your own jorney in life... some don't make it though this jorney though... anways I'm not going to ramble.lol

well i say that they fined no hope in life....the fact that somehow if there was a god why would he create such a ed up world and just let it be....or religion has pushed them way with the hyporacy that they have alot of the time...

There might be a few atheists that choose to be so because of those reasons but certainly not any large percentage. Most don't believe in god in the same reason you don't think Santa Clause is real. Simply the evidence for god just isn't there. It's one of the reasons that as education increases so does the number of atheists in a society, many religions such as the Amish limit the amount of education that there members get so that they can better control them.

Interesting topic.

Sadly enough my view is on the agnostic or atheist is that of their own life experience. I mean many people who do not believe are people that have had hard times and blame GOd for their misfortunes. I have had a hard life and nothing comes to me but goes to everyone else and it is not fair, well few people live a life these days consistent with what the bible teaches us. I truly believe that if followed strictly the Bible leads to happiness we never knew possible, including the parts about giving what you have away, the more you practise the more the existence of GOD becomes evident, the further you are away from "good" the further youmove away from GOD. I think the unbeleiver struggles with that, God does not move away from us, we (by our own decisions and actions) move away from him and then the blame game begins. Whew, got a little carried away:)

I mean many people who do not beleive are people that have had hard times and blame GOd for their misfortunes. Actually I find that it quite the opposite. Most ardent believers seem have had some form of trauma and/or abuse in their lives and religion is their coping mechanism. People who have had a great childhood and a good education are more likely to be atheist/agnostic in my opinion.

That may require an explanation. I do believe we all question faith when we fall on bad times, that's normal. HOWEVER, personal events go a LONG way in determining how you view God. I doubt the truly happy believe in nothing, I just can't accept that.

That may require an explaination. I do beleive we all question faith when we fall on bad times, thats normal. HOWEVER, personal events go a LONG way in determining how you view God. I doubt the truly happy beleive in nothing, i just can't accept that.

Sorry bud, got to disagree with you here. I'm truly happy, my husband is truly happy and we don't believe. Same with a lot of my friends. I can honestly say that aside from superficial things (bigger house, nicer car), I wouldn't change a single thing about my life. I'm proud of what I've done, I'm proud of what I'm doing, I have a family who loves me, I have a really, really great life. I've doubted the existence of god since I was a kid; I remember being really young and thinking, "this just doesn't make sense to me". It took a few years to realize that had a name, but I never subscribed to the religious line of thinking. It had nothing to do with tragedy in my life, not at all. It just never added up, even in my 5-year-old brain.

You seem to think atheists are people who hate god; maybe some do, but most don't. It's hard to hate something you don't believe in... I mean, do you hate the Tooth Fairy?

I cannot prove whether you are at a level of happiness in relation to the level one would feel by just knowing there is a GOD and so there's where our debate can go no further. I DO not think atheists hate God, I guess it seems likea crazy idea to them, that's all. My point was that when you do believe the more reasonable the existence of a God becomes, to the point where you cannot imagine anyone NOT believing, that's all.

As for you last question, yes I do hate the tooth fairy, the stiffed me on my wisdom tooth:)

That's the vexing part, we can understand the other side (believers) but you refuse to understand anyone who is not like you. Why is that?

BTW my family is truly happy, so are millions of others who are not like you.

LIKE ME??

What a beleiver, actually there are more "of us" than there are "of you".

Who's to say I do not UNDERSTAND YOU! If your argument is that logically there is no God than that's one thing, I can logically conclude there is. I have no issue with you not believing, not sure where you got that from.

Hello:

Well, I'm an atheist and I'm not happy at all. I guess that proves it.

But, I don't think I'd be happier if I started pretending about things, though. Do you know how silly I would feel if I started pretending? No, you don't, do you?

excon

You say:

I have no issue with you not beleiving, not sure where you got that from.

But earlier:

I doubt the truly happy beleive in nothing, i just can't accept that.

What's up with that?

YES, how is that taking issue with the fact you don't believe. My belief is that the truly happy are those that believe in God, are you taking offence at the fact that I am saying your not happy, cause that's not what I mean. I believe spiritually that you reach a happiness through faith which can only be achieved through God. O.k so you are happy great, am I happier than you, I have no clue, were the saints happy, yes they were. This is a spiritual debate, one that cannot determine whether you are happier than say I am or not, it surely goes a little deeper than the previous persons comment about "that proves it". Please see that, and ironically it seems you have a bigger issue understanding my belief than I have understanding yours.

ALSO, to excon:

Saying that would you be happier if you started "pretending" in things is to suggest that those that believe are pretending, which is very insulting to the many that do believe in something. I do not cast insults at you belief system and ask the same out of you.

The issue is that you profess only you can only be truly happy if you believe in God. That of course is incorrect. There are a lot in very unhappy believers in God, what the hell happened to them?

Hello again, BMI:

Boy, I sure didn't intend to insult anybody. I know that if you did what I was talking about, you'd call it praying. I know you'd believe it too, and I'm happy for you.

But, from MY vantage point, were I to do it, I couldn't call it anything else BUT pretending. If that offends you, so be it.

excon

Fair enough my man, I guess we can cool it on that point, If Karma thinks that you can be truly happy without God, than that of course is incorrect, and if offends than so be it.

LAST POINT: How ironic is it that your user name would have the word karma in it?

Why does everything need to be in black or white? Why does religion have to be included in order to understand a greater existence? Why can an atheist not be spiritual and be connected to the energy in the universe that brings enlightenment and awareness?
I am spiritual, I grew up religious and my sister is an atheist, and so is my best friend. I think that it partly has to do with a fear of the unknown and the mystery of life cannot be solved. So, the answer is to say, there isn't anything after this life. How do they know? How can they be so sure? Just as someone who is religious can't be sure, they go on their faith. So an atheist has "faith" that there is nothing after this life, no continuation into the next existence. (Not including a "heaven")

Ever read a Conversation with God? It is an interesting book, not religious and it puts things into perspective when deciding is God within us and are we really God. Yes, it puts the responsibility on us, to live a life that is loving and compassionate. Not everyone wants that responsibility.

Keep an open mind to what you don't know and don't understand.

I don't really have a point here. I'm not an atheist, but I can understand how they reached their conclusions, and I'm cool with that.

I do want to point out, though, that the only religion that is truly bothered by the idea of atheism is Christianity. At least, the only people I've ever been around that seemed bothered by it in the least were Christians.

I find that interesting.

Why can an atheist not be spiritual and be connected to the energy in the universe that brings enlightenment and awareness?

For the same reason we don't call a boat a fire truck. Because the definitions don't match up. Change "atheist" to "agnostic" and you're on to something.

UMM no, what does being spiritual have anything to do with religion? It only does if you yourself are religious.
Yes Synn, you are right. I have nothing against anyone who believes whatever they believe. I just think faith in nothing, is still faith, right?

Religion puts people into categories and makes rules to make people feel safe and to know how to live their life.

Spirituality has to do with being connected to the universe and its energy, yes the Universe has its own natural laws, but they are not religious by any means.

Call it what you want, but the definition of religion and spirituality are NOT the same, so they wouldn't match up.

I don't really have a point here. I'm not an atheist, but I can understand how they reached their conclusions, and I'm cool with that.

I do want to point out, though, that the only religion that is truly bothered by the idea of atheism is Christianity. At least, the only people I've ever been around that seemed bothered by it in the least were Christians.

I find that interesting.

I am a muslim I am not personally against atheism (each one is responsible for his own choices),but I do believe in the fact that denial of the Creator will have its consequences on the person (whether in this world or the next).

A muslims main belief being the belief and submission to One and Only God,without associating partners.

This is not a point for argument,just stating my belief.

From wiki:

"Many self-described atheists are skeptical of all supernatural beings and cite a lack of empirical evidence for the existence of deities."

Being spiritual implies belief in spirits (human spirit, human soul) which would be a supernatural being. I personally have never met an atheist who believes in such things. Lots of people say they are atheists when really, they're agnostic. Regarding your comment about the "energy in the universe that brings enlightenment and awareness" again, you're talking about something supernatural. Sure there's energy in the universe, just not the kind you are describing.

Right on, that's what I was trying to say earlier, but it turned ugly... LOL

And my point was, what does that have to do with religion??

And my point was, what does that have to do with religion???

Because to an atheist there's no difference between religion and spirituality. It's all a bunch of hooey with no scientific backing. If you are an atheist, by definition, you CAN'T believe in the human soul or spirit.

If Karma thinks that you can be truly happy without God, than that of course is incorrect, and if offends than so be it.

You can not say this... this is where you are demeaning others ways that are not your own. You got upset at Excon for him saying that it was pretending and then you go and say something like this. You or no one on earth can tell another person that their beliefs are wrong or incorrect. You do not know beyond a doubt that your way is THE way... you BELIEVE it is... as I have said before in this thread. Belief and fact are two very different things.

I am not atheist, but my husband is, and I understand their beliefs, even though I do not necessarily agree with them... but I will be the last person to tell them they are wrong. I respect others too much.

In my religion we are open to all forms of religion, beliefs, and spiritual enlightenment.
I was raised Christian and was confused, but happy. I am no longer Christian and lead a very happy life as does my family. I don't think either way can be the root of happiness... our actions are the root to this.

I am philosophically an agnostic, but for all intents and purposes I'm an atheist. One thing I find strange about myself is that I will still knock-on-wood. I do not believe something will happen if I don't, but I do it anyway. My girlfriend, who is quite religious, finds this rather amusing.

Anyway, I agree with the earlier posts, way back on page one, that I simply do not have the capacity to believe. I went to church for 16 years, but never actually remember believing what was preached. Anyway, I just find the whole idea of God (in the Christian sense anyway) absurd. However, I do still knock-on-wood :)

Ahhhhhh, to respond to alkalifgklhflg whatever,

The post was in response two the two previous, it was A SHOT if you will at the previous posters (ex-con & Karma) you see I combined what Karma wrote with what excon wrote, so technically they said those first and are equally as guilty as myself, actually more so. Obviously this has been lost on 2 of you, firsty yourself for jumping into conversations without reading the entire structure, and on Karma who obviously did not notice the word play and yet still casts insults "narrow minded" yet goes completely unaware of her own doings. If u want to start arguments than PLEASE PAY ATTENTION, otherwise u just look bad:(

The narrow-minded comment had nothing to do with the 'wordplay'. It mostly has to do with the impossibilty of understanding how people can be happy for other reasons than believing in your god. I'd like to think we can all get along and my friends and workmates are, well actually I don't know or care what their beliefs are because they are all good, (mostly) happy people regardless of what they believe.

Edit to add: your misspelling of the poster's name on purpose was quite immature.

I understand that it is all a bunch of hooey, or whatever, to people who are an atheist. However, just as they are so sure that there is nothing other than the existence they are in, so are those that are so convinced that God created the world. The only difference is what each person believes. Athiests have the faith to say this is it, but what else are they going by? NO different than a religious person. Faith in nothing is still faith.
So, my point is, why does everything have to be either or? Why do people have to label themselves in a particular way, or anyone else for that matter. We know one thing, we just don't know where we go when we die, or what happens to us. Can we agree on that? I wasn't attacking what an atheist believes, simply stating that one could be spiritual, without being religious. (label not included) I myself don't live by such strict standards of defining what I think or believe .That is the danger in religion, or in being atheist in my opinion.

NOthing is definite, we all know we are limited in our understanding of this existence. How we choose to perceive it is what makes us unique human beings. How extraordinary life is, no matter how we got here or where we are going.

Quite funny as well, ALSO, perhaps you should not cast insults or slights and then turn around and suggest others are being immature, start a topic on that!

Once again, did I ever write you can only be happy if you believe in God, or did I write you can be HAPPIER believing in God. All the posts refuting my posts are because it seems as if you are trying to make what I'm saying into something you take offence at OR are not reading the structure carefully enough. Either way you are not fully understanding the quite simple point I was saying. AS for this topic, it is over, we will not agree and you will continue to cast insults and misspell peoples names on purpose, so we shall end it here, believe what you would like because I am truly happy for you.

Can we be friends now:)

Shattered,

I do agree with and so did jillianleab when she pointed you towards the term agnostic. Here's a quick definition:

Agnosticism (from the Greek "a," meaning "without," and Gnosticism or "gnosis," meaning knowledge) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims—particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of God, gods, deities, or even ultimate reality—is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently unknowable due to the nature of subjective experience.

Agnostics claim either that it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of God or gods; or, alternatively, that while individual certainty may be possible, they personally have no knowledge. Agnosticism in both cases involves some form of skepticism.

Can we be friends now:)Sure, as long as you're a happy, good person who treats others well. That's my only criteria. :)

I understand that it is all a bunch of hooey, or whatever, to people who are an atheist. However, just as they are so sure that there is nothing other than the existence they are in, so are those that are so convinced that God created the world. The only difference is what each person believes. Athiests have the faith to say this is it, but what else are they going by? NO different than a religious person. Faith in nothing is still faith.
So, my point is, why does everything have to be either or? Why do people have to label themselves in a particular way, or anyone else for that matter. We know one thing, we just don't know where we go when we die, or what happens to us. Can we agree on that? I wasn't attacking what an atheist believes, simply stating that one could be spiritual, without being religious. (label not included) I myself don't live by such strict standards of defining what I think or believe .That is the danger in religion, or in being atheist in my opinion.

NOthing is definite, we all know we are limited in our understanding of this existence. How we choose to perceive it is what makes us unique human beings. How extraordinary life is, no matter how we got here or where we are going.

We give labels to things because they help us identify with others. Without labels it's very difficult to discuss things. There is nothing saying someone can't be religious and still be spiritual, but by definition, one cannot be an atheist and be spiritual. In your post (#36) you asked:


Why can an atheist not be spiritual and be connected to the energy in the universe that brings enlightenment and awareness?

I think I've explained why this doesn't work. But yes, someone can not believe in an organized religion and be spiritual. They are not, however, an atheist. They are agnostic, which is quite different.

Just because labels make it easier to identify others, doesn't mean we all specifically fall into one category. I understand what agnostic is and I thank you for your specific reference to which post, with the definition. I got it.
Let me clarify myself as not confuse any reference to any label you might be referring to.

A person who DEEMS themselves an atheist, may in fact be an AGNOSTIC or may have a inclination to be spiritual or be connected to the energy that is in the universe, that we are all made up of. MAybe that person doesn't believe they can be defined outside of either term, but I am saying they can. That is a opinion and perspective, one that cannot and should not be determined in finality by anyone else. It is more determined by life experiences. But I appreciate your clarification. I am hoping you can see past the vocabulary words to understand the intent of what I am saying.

Ahhhhhh, to respond to alkalifgklhflg whatever,

The post was in response two the two previous, it was A SHOT if you will at the previous posters (ex-con & Karma) you see i combined what Karma wrote with what excon wrote, so technically they said those first and are equally as guilty as myself, actually moreso. Obviously this has been lost on 2 of you, firsty yourself for jumping into conversations without reading the entire structure, and on Karma who obviously did not notice the word play and yet still casts insults "narrow minded" yet goes completely unaware of her own doings. If u want to start arguments than PLEASE PAY ATTENTION, otherwise u just look bad:(

Honey, Ive been here from the beginning, maybe you should be the one to go back and re-read. And YOU were the one who said what you said "that of course is incorrect", that was a quote from your own post, pointing blame other places does not do you justice.

Another post another mistake, I wrote it in response to one previous to me NOT written by me, if I knew how to quote I would. Nevertheless, speaking too soon does not do you justice:)

You did not quote Karma, you took what you wanted to say and added a phrase he said..

From Karma's post:


The issue is that you profess only you can only be truly happy if you believe in God. That of course is incorrect. There are a lot in very unhappy believers in God, what the hell happened to them?

There is the difference... You used his line to prove your point, therefore it became Your words...

Your words...


Fair enough my man, I guess we can cool it on that point, If Karma thinks that you can be truly happy without God, than that of course is incorrect, and if offends than so be it.
Karma would not have said what you typed... no mistake, you are just trying to twist things. Karma said that you are incorrect to assume that the only way to be truly happy is to follow god...

You said that he is incorrect that you can be happy without God, and that is not quite the same as he said, therefore... not a quote.

... and speaking too soon?

Writing speaking to soon?? Suggests you have somehow proven me wrong, that's how a stick works, you prove the other wrong, you don't just write it when you THINK your right.

Karma wrote it in relation to believing in God makes you more happy, she is saying that this in incorrect, which would be no more correct than me writing it is incorrect to say otherwise. SO we can establish that if I am being insulting to the unbeleiving than they too are being equally insulting to the beleiver. By mixing the two phrases of each of them, it makes that point more noticeable by using their own words against them in that context. I never said it was a quote, Karma did not write what I wrote exatly and I never said she did, so where does the quote that you are saying is not a quote come from??

she He.

First of all, I did not write "speaking to soon???" to imply you were wrong, I simply did not see the relevance of putting it into your post, I didn't know how to respond, because I didn't understand where you were coming from...

And Karma was not being disrespectful of your religion... he was simply pointing out that it is not correct to say that those who do not follow your religion are not happy, and those that do follow it are happy. And he is correct in saying that. There are hundreds of people of different faiths who are very happy... For you to say that those who do not believe in God are unhappy is incorrect... and that that is disrespect.. you are saying that no one can be happy unless they believe in what you believe... If you want to take that offensively go ahead... but it doesn't change that what you did was disrespectful. You are trying to compare what he said to what you said as just a difference of opinion and that isn't quite right... karma wasn't picking a side... you were.

Needless to say, we have now officially wandered off the original topic... and unless you want to open another thread, I will not continue on in this one.

Hello:

Well, I'm an athiest and I'm not happy at all. I guess that proves it.

But, I don't think I'd be happier if I started pretending about things, though. Do you know how silly I would feel if I started pretending? No, you don't, do you?

excon
I think that Pretending is a huge factor here. We need to look a little deeper about what we are actually saying and doing. No pretending just honest words and thoughts...
I mean really, if I look hard enough and deep enough, I will see that I have definitely pretended, purposely as well as accidentally... No pretending. It is so hard not to be contradicting. So hard that I question my own faith. Hugs to all. Start

Thank MY GOD, (GET IT)

I NEVER SAID PEOPLE WHO DOD NOT Believe WERE UNHAPPY. You point out where on earth I said that. All I said was that in my opinion those that truly believe are CAPABLE of reaching a happiness that those who do not believe cannot reach as it says in the BIBLE, (not in those exact words of course). SO, if I believe the bible because I believe in God than I am only telling you what I believe. NOWHERE, did I ever mention that non-beleivers were miserable people, you guys or girls keep thinking that is what I am saying and that is what has caused this whole discusiion to spin out of context. I too am done with this topic, I much rather talk about woman anyway:)

I NEVER SAID PEOPLE WHO DOD NOT BELEIVE WERE UNHAPPY. You point out where on earth i said that.


Here you go -->https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/spirituality/atheists-do-not-believe-how-111864-3.html#post560524

I doubt the truly happy beleive in nothing, i just can't accept that.Does that not preclude that only believers can be truly happy?

NeedKarma, that is right. It is important to accept people for who they are and what they believe. No need to agree, just a need to accept it. I agree completely...

I'm an ateist I guess I don't classify myself I just don't believe, I went to church and bible groups and camps and all that memorized the bible versus and gave my heart to god , but I was just doing it because the other kids I knew did it. I never believed there was something out there I honestly think that the big bang theory is entirly possible and probable, and I think that's what happens when you die you get buried you cease to excist, I don't know if you go somewhere or have dreams or get reborn I guess I will have to find out but I don't think some mystic being that nobodys seem in thousands of years , and all we know is written in some book, he could have been a man with a big imagination and that's where the bible came from who do you know it wasn't a child's book meaning to teach children to be good and law abiding , why haven't we seen this god like I think its such BS a huge brain washing sheme ( that new movie jesus camp holy ****) I just think that it's a nice story but get your head out of the clouds sceience can explain everything, and when it can't its because were not smart enough to explain it I think God is a lie taking credit for what naturally occurs

The brain washed ones! w.e. I don't know if that's a good comment or bad but I was told my ideas on atheisim would not be critiqued so??

the brain washed ones! w.e. i dont know if thats a good comment or bad but i was told my ideas on atheisim would not be critiqued so ????
I gave you a green mark, but wanted you to know that I wasn't in the clouds...
I am not an atheist, but I do understand how someone would be. I can take it sweet... And by the way who said that your ideas wouldn't be critiqued?

Please do not think that I am going to argue your points,just curious!!!:confused:

Thanks in advance.
I guess critiqued was a bad choice of words but yeah power to all the jesus freaks out there but if you ask me WWJD I'm going to say " he'd renounce" I don't mean to be rude to believers out there I just don't believe so this is my opinion

i guess critiqued was a bad choice of words but yeah power to all the jesus freaks out there but if you ask me WWJD im gonna say " he'd renounce" i dont mean to be rude to believers out there i just dont believe so this is my opinion

I am the one who started this thread and I agreed not to criticise anyone's belief, but I am not speaking for those answering my thread, they are free to state their opinion as they see fit!:)

Oh OK sorry my bad... well then blow me away people.. just ask yourself WWJD ?

oh ok sorry my bad... well then blow me away people ..just ask your self WWJD ?

Not to sound dumb, but what does WWJD stand for?

"What Would Jesus Do" is that what it means...

If so it is not relevant to me as I am not a Christian...

Thanks for your thoughts though...

Yeah that is what it means I went to bible camps and we got braclets with WWJD on them so that if we were in a bad situation we could look at the braclets and be all "good" lol I knew a girl who had one one and I went up to her and asked her if she knew what her braclet meant she said no after I told her she flipped out and threw the braclet away her friend gave it to her and she didn't know what WWJD meant lol

i guess critiqued was a bad choice of words but yeah power to all the jesus freaks out there but if you ask me WWJD im gonna say " he'd renounce" i dont mean to be rude to believers out there i just dont believe so this is my opinion
Who are you calling a Jesus Freak... Just because someone stands for something different than you, you have decided to lable them as a freak. IT IS OK FOR YOU NOT TO BELIEVE SWEET, it really is.
And Firmbeliever, your thread has been enlightening. I love it.

Who are you calling a Jesus Freak....Just because someone stands for something different than you, you have decided to lable them as a freak. IT IS OK FOR YOU NOT TO BELIEVE SWEET, it really is.
And Firmbeliever, your thread has been enlightening. I love it.

Thanks Start,:)
I thought it is interesting to see it all in one thread than read all the atheistic views given at different times on different threads...

Thanks Start,:)
I thought it is interesting to see it all in one thread than read all the atheistic views given at different times on different threads...Nothing wrong with that either. :)

O Troubles, it sounds like your experience with church and bible camp was a little on the extreme side, so maybe you have a bad taste in your mouth with anything that is similar to that. I don't think that is what I, may others have discussed at all. Anyone has the choice to believe or not believe, we were given free will. That is a gift. Yes the big bang theory is possible and so is a creator to create a big bang. The specifics of who and what the creator is, and how, or what rules we should follow, all come from different sources, over thousands of years. Men did write the bible and no we don't know the intent of what God wanted, only the perception of the men writing it. HOwever, there wouldn't be so many religions if there wasn't some universal truth to all of them. I don't consider myself religious, although I was raised in a Catholic family. I have created a relationship with God that is personal. I recognize that God is within me and within all of us. The energy and the ability to give and receive love, is how I feel God exists. It is a opinion, based on my own life experiences. I have strayed away from God when I was younger and when I had my first child, I felt the love within me, for myself and for my child, that I knew had nothing to do with science. I cannot tell you what happens after this existence. I know that our physical one ends after this life, but I feel that my spirit will continue on and time is irrelevant to that. WE don't have the capacity to understand that now and that is partly where your skepticism comes in. NObody can force you to have faith or believe something that doesn't make sense, but when the beauty and wonder of love, nature and the small miracles every day, woke me up, there was no denying a creator that is greater than this existence, or for my limited understanding of it. I hope that you surround yourself with people who love and support you, regardless of your beliefs and that you may know that you too, have something miraculous in you that allows you all the feelings you have. It is beautiful and it is love, for me, that is God. Whatever you define it as, is fine with me. Just try to have an open mind for other perspectives as well. IT doesn't mean you have to agree.

Well I'm sure that all atheists are too much confused with all these religions existence. They think that the only way out is believing in non of these but it has been made clear that since the time there has been human life on this earth people have never stopped searching in something to believe. I have always believed that a human must have something to believe,a religion, that gives him/her strength because no one is perfect and we fail so often as humans in our daily lives and need support.. I believe that we can gain this strength by praying..

Actually, people believing in religion since the dawn of man in pretty simply explained. We need a way to explain what we don't understand, and in general, our feeble little minds don't think the way genius people's minds do. So, when ancient man saw it was raining he thought, "That comes from the sky. Something must be up there. I can't see anything up there. But something HAS to be up there. If that something can make it rain, it's pretty powerful. I'd better make it happy." Ancient man had no way of knowing rain is caused by a front moving in or a low pressure system. It took a while to figure that one out.

This sort of logic still applies today. Say tomorrow the sky turns bright green. Neon green, not a natural shade, and unmistakable that it is, in fact, green. Scientists are baffled. They don't know why the sky is green any more than anyone else is. You will have a lot of people who say that god made the sky green (some no doubt will say it's the end of the world), but you will have others who say there is a scientific reason for the sky to be green. A few weeks, months, maybe years pass with scientists trying to figure out why the sky is green. Eventually they find some new gas that reacted with all the smog or whatever and THAT'S what turned the sky green. Not god, gas and smog. Some people will accept the scientific POV and reject the "god did it" excuse. Others never will.

Of course my example is silly and totally made up, but it illustrates why man has always had religion; it's an excellent way to explain the things we aren't able to understand.

Just curious, how does science explain the ability to give and receive love?

Sure!

There are chemicals in the brain... actually, this is a medical explanation that I can't really give.

Can God explain why some people just hate each other, for no particular reason? Say... siblings who never got along, practically from birth, no matter how much they both tried?

Just curious, how does science explain the ability to give and receive love?I believe it's related to couple bonding and propagation of the species. As a counter I don't believe religion explains the ability to give and receive love either.

You cannot know hate, if you have never experienced love. All the emotions we feel are necessary, but chemicals in the brain cannot identify every feeling I have ever felt in my heart, whether hatred or love. At least not that I understand.

I think we are all supposed to experience every emotion in under to live life to the fullest. I don't think there is any grand plan the way we are supposed to feel, think, or respond. IT is a process of learning and discovering who we are. I don't know that science can explain that for me, but if that is what makes sense to you, I get that.

You cannot know hate, if you have never experienced love. Hate and love are learned traits not innate ones. One is taught to hate and to love from the moment one exits the womb. Of course that stirs up the whole nature vs nurture debate which can be an entirely separate thread. :)

So true so true, but every emotion that a newborn feels. IT is a fact that babies who are not held or talked to, have serious adverse affects. If the stimulation of touch and need to be held wasn't part of that, than I would agree with you. There is a need to be nurtured from the moment you arrive on earth. Everyone desires to be loved. That is why we are here.

Shattered, you just explained my purpose in life: to be a loving parent to my kids. :)

AHHHHH!! Sorry I deleted my words. I meant to say, every emotion a newborn feels, they have before they have been taught to feel anything. To me, to feel is innate and not learned.

So those that hate all black people, that was in them from birth??

So those that hate all black people, that was in them from birth????
Nope, but wanting love is.

The ability to have emotions and feelings is with you from birth, the life experiences you have and how you are raised, determines the hate that you have in your heart.

Fair enough. It doesn't explain anything but we can agree that the ability to feel emotions is there from birth. Same with dogs and cats and snakes and toads.

As a believer in The Creator of the worlds, I have always wondered how an atheist comes to the conclusion that God is non existent ?
Please do not think that I am going to argue your points,just curious!!!:confused:

Thanks in advance.
I still haven't seen an answer to this question...
I just don't think there is proof, PROOF enough to answer it. No one can tell me he does exist and no one can tell me he doesn't. I CHOOSE to believe in him.

That is the great thing about this life, we are given free will.
What a wonderful world we were given. WE have everything we need to survive and yet we still want answers. The human ego is a struggle, for me especially.
My choice is to recognize the beauty in things, the love I feel and see around me, and the ability to share my points of view with every kind of person. I thank you all for your observations and perspectives, they are all unique. Just like us.

The problem is that there's no proof for a hell of a lot of things, like flying lemons and peanut-butter-planets.

By your reasoning, that means that these things exist and can be believed in.

It is not up to atheists to prove that there is no god, it's up to the believers to provide evidence for a god, or else your god is no better than a flying lemon or a peanut-butter-planet.

There is no Proof, except the writtings of others to tell us. So we have to use our own judgement on whether we want to take the chance in not believing. Again, I choose to believe, some out of fear, and some out of the deepest gut feeling I have ever had in my life. I guess I am only looking for answers from myself... but I enjoy reading yours.

shatteredsoul: The fact that there is no evidence of its existence is evidence that it doesn't exist.

Nooooooo! Lol

whether we want to take the chance in not believing.There is no 'chance' being taken but thank you for your concern.

Either way, I think the point was, there isn't proof to disprove that God exists, as there isn't proof to say that God does exist. Either way, it is based on a personal BELIEF. Which requires either a faith in God, or a faith in no God.
By the way, didn't Einstein also prove that time doesn't exist, that it is really a continuim? IF that is true, than our understanding of how long we have been here doesn't really exist. Or how old we are. Or how long the earth or the universe has been here. So, why do we have time if that doesn't exist?

There is no 'chance' being taken but thank you for your concern.
Ok, yes I guess that is my concern, I mean to say that I get scared at the thought of not believing. I have believed all of my life, from my experiences, what has been told to me, my family now, it is a huge step to not believe. At least for me. Although that is the road I have been on this past year. I am a little concerned, that is for sure.

I saw someone say on another thread(cant remember who it was),
"the ones who work for a heaven have nothing to lose if they are wrong,but what if the ones who dont believe are wrong ?"
Not the exact words but something to that effect...

Sorry firm, I don't run my life based on hedging a bet.

Time, as in the forward movement through some dimension that we have no control over, obviously exists. It's just that Einstein came up with a different way to look at it, a different way of thinking about it. One that makes predictions that no other way of thinking had ever made, and those predictions were confirmed by real measurements. This is science.

God was an answer to a question, why is the sky blue, where did humans come from, who made the sun shine. All of these were answered by the concept of a god. Now, we have much more measurable and prediction-creating theories as to why these things are. God is turning more and more into an answer without a question.

Firm, I believe you are referring to Pascal's wager. Pascal was one of the most influential people in science, it went something like this:

* You live as though God exists.
O If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
O If God does not exist, you gain nothing & lose nothing.

* You live as though God does not exist.
O If God exists, you go to hell: your loss is infinite.
O If God does not exist, you gain nothing & lose nothing.

By his reasoning, if you believe in god then your gain is infinite or is nothing. Whereas if you do not believe in god then your loss is infinite or is nothing. Thus it is best to believe in god.

It makes many assumptions, it assumes that god is not benevolent, that he only rewards belief, that the christian god is the correct one, that he rewards even people who only believe out of fear, and assumes that heaven/hell is infinitely good/bad.
So there are a lot of problems with these assumptions, as you will probably work out for yourself.

the ones who work for a heaven have nothing to lose if they are wrong, but what if the ones who dont believe are wrong?Hello firm:

Your writer suggests that only one side of the bet is taking a risk. He thinks the game is fixed because if it turns out he lived his entire life believing in a fantasy that turns out NOT to be true, he didn't lose anything.

An atheist like me, however, would say that he lost the only thing he ever had.

excon

OK, that is Einstein's theory, but time is something that man created but that doesn't mean it really exists. That was my point. God doesn't have to be the answer for everything for you, but maybe that is where the struggle comes in. I am not saying I don't understand your perspective, just saying you should be more open to others. You want to disprove what you don't know, just as you want to prove what you think you do know.
Science is amazing, it expains so much and is so useful. Imagine if we used more than a small percentage of our brain, what we would understand? Life is a mystery, because it is supposed to be, you can find wonder, beauty and small miracles in all of it, or not. That is a personal choice. Just because science makes sense to you, doesn't mean that a creator didn't create all of it, including science. We cannot explain why we fall in love, with who we fall in love with, it just is. For me, the creator, just is. To name the creator God, is my choice. I think because of all the rules around what and how to believe, it frightens and angers people. I just am trying to say that we were given abilities, talents, feelings, emotions, and the knowledge to live in this life, but not all of it is explained with a scientific theory. There is something more to it than that, but because it cannot be written out in detail, you say it must not exist. We can explain why the sky is blue, or why the sun is out, we can explain why the clouds give us rain. What we can't explain is how this makes us feel when we see a beautiful sunset, or when we feel raindrops on our face, or what it is like to look at the most amazing sky at night with all the glorious stars and planets. Yes, you can explain science, but the feelings and emotions that come from within us, come from within and therefore cannot be explained. It doesn't mean that they don't exist.

Hey Excon and Capuchin,
I wasn't referring to any scientist at all, it was just a member of this forum who said this and it stuck on my mind...

And about taking risks,
I believe what I believe as I believe it is the truth...

Science is amazing, it expains so much and is so useful. Imagine if we used more than a small percentage of our brain, what we would understand?

It's actually a myth we only use a small percentage of our brain. Neuroscience for Kids - 10% of the Brain Myth (http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/tenper.html)

As a believer in The Creator of the worlds, I have always wondered how an atheist comes to the conclusion that God is non existent ?
Please do not think that I am going to argue your points,just curious!!!:confused:

Thanks in advance.
First, this is a topic that can go in so many directions and here is my opinion. :)

People can believe in what they choose, whether God our Savior or just another god of their own. I think we all have the brain capacity to believe in Christ because I believe that is how we were created. However, it is hard to imagine how one person or being could have created this world and us and everything else but like I also believe He is omniscent, omnipresent, and our brains and way of thinking can not even compare to His. That's just how it is. There is so much more I could say but I hate to think I would offend anyone if I already haven't; if I have I'm sorry...

Scientists have wondered this for many years and no doubt they will continue as will many other people do and will. We're humans and were created with this curiosity to know and think "Is there something else..?" Coincidence.. I believe there is a reason we have that curiosity just like I believe everything happens for a reason. But we're also meant to enjoy the life we've be given and not go knocking on people's door to say "hey believe this" or"Don't believe this" , etc. Last thing is we seem to forget that you can still love the person for who they are and not like or disagree with what they believe. :)

Thanks for starting such an interesting thread. Everyone has something to offer and learn from on here.
I wanted to add that, I don't think whether you believe or don't, it has any affect on God. It only has an affect on how you perceive and live your life. I don't think God would have created us with the ability to make our own minds, mistakes, or choices, if we were going to be punished by them. That is something that was created by man, as a way of knowing what rules we think we should follow and how to behave in a society.
Whether we want to believe, choose to believe, or not, doesn't make something exist or not exist. IT just changes our perspective. I think that when we die, we have the clarity to understand what we don't now, and we become part of the energy that goes on in the universe. This doesn't mean I believe there is someone waiting with a staff and rod waiting to tell me where to go. I choose in this life what I want, and the consequences that I reap, are here on earth. I don't think that many people see themselves as responsible or good enough to have God within them, but that doesn't mean it isn't true. I guess what I am saying is that God is probably not what we have read to believe, but what we are made up of and what we are connected to in this life and this universe. That may not make sense to everyone, so it is easier for many to believe in religion. Or, to not believe in anything. Religion has specific rules, and it is something to lean on when you feel you cannot rely on yourself.
When your mind and body is completely quiet and you have the ability to listen to that inner voice inside, what and who do you think that is? I think it is God in us, talking to us, waiting for us to listen, to OURSELVES> WE have the answers within. We don't need a textbook or a bible to tell us. That is what people need to feel safe.
Therefore, the God you say doesn't exist is in you, in me, that is what we are.

But science can explain feelings, we can monitor them on a MRI scan, we can tell if people are lying because of their emotional states, we can go "ping, yeah i reckon he's happy", maybe not very accurately, but technology is getting better all the time. Feelings are measureable and they exist. Time is measureable and it exists. What we feel when there's a sunset is measurable and it exists. God is not measurable except as a personal feeling or thought, and that's exactly what I believe he is, he's not physical, he's your way of dealing with the world and he's within you, he's personal to you.

I guess we will never see eye to eye, I am trying to understand where you are coming from, I just don't agree. I am not religious and I am not spouting how you should think or feel.
OK, a test determines if their body suggests that they may be lying. It doesn't show what they are feeling. An MRI can show brain activity, but it cannot detect if one is feeling love or whatever emotion within them. Feelings aren't based on science, and there are only theories, that is why we have psychology. We have philosophy to understanding different ways of looking at things. These abilities to disect, debate, discover and understand are not explained by science, they just are.

It is like looking at the glass half empty or half full, I guess my view seems half full, as does yours.

Time exists in the way we understand it, that doesn't mean that is the way it really is. Kind of like our existence.
Can each of our own perspectives and understandings of our existence be explained by science as well?

Naw, feelings are base on our perception of things, not science. And Karma, I am not quitting yet, I just have my issues with it all...
You all have such a different way of putting things... I find that fascinating.

You show someone a picture of their daughter, take a MRI, it shows that a part of their brain fires up. Every time you show someone, anyone, a picture of something they love, the same areas of the brain fire up.
That is direct evidence of a feeling, love. It's scientifically measurable. And that's only with the tiny amount of technology we have today, just imagine what will be possible in the future, it's a function of your body just like a beating heart or a tensing muscle, and it's not outside of the physical reality. It's right there, flashing up on a screen for all to see.

Of course "feelings aren't based on science". THat's a ridiculous thing to ask of science. Science measures the physical world and feelings are a part of the physical world.

I have no idea what your point is with philosophy... Everything in the world "just is", that is my point. Science tries to explain these things that just are. I thought that your point is that God created these things and so that things aren't "just is".

"Time exists in the way we understand it, that doesn't mean that is the way it really is." Sure, I'll concede that, but that doesn't mean that the way we understand it is not correct to the extent that we can measure, which is enough for science until something is measured that is not explained by current understanding, and then a new theory is made. That's how science works.

"Can each of our own perspectives and understandings of our existence be explained by science as well?"
Yes. If a scientist had you genes as well as a complete history of your life, they could tell you, with a lot of time and a little technology, exactly why you are the way you are. Of course they can't do this now, but in the future when more is known, there's no reason why not.

Isn't science marvelous for us who believe in a Creator,
It just shows that our physical selves are miraculously well made!

Sorry if I throw the thread a bit, but thought I would respond to this question, what with being such a simple direct question, with no apparent agenda, and the excellent following adult conversation. I work at avoiding this topic.

Atheists can be considered as simply pragmatic, each for their own reason. We tend to only believe in what is. Attitude and ego do get in the way many at times when discussing with believers, but my conversations with fellow atheists usually begins at look at what is going on in the world right now, and then what history has shown all of us.

Science and religious teachings are methods of explaining, to each his own. If only each would believe in what they want and leave others alone, as in all of humankind, what a world it could be.

If there is a supreme being, I would like to have a chat with him/her. (Pretty clever, covering all my bases. Why is God never a woman? Definitely stronger gender.) I have an issue with someone that sits back and watches all the death and destruction, and maybe, just maybe, grant a miracle to those that pray. All the power to those that do, sincerely.

Funny thing is I believe in the "other side". I research all I can and seen and heard things that convinces me there is something we all don't know, but will once we pass.

For someone living without a belief in a supreme being, I am doing OK, having lived through bad times many could not imagine. I will take the good with the bad as it comes. Treat others as you would like to be treated, it does work. Good words and moral, nothing mystical about it.

I also believe most atheists really don't want to talk about. It is human nature to try to be right, it can be intimidating to be up against so many that do believe. I personally hate arguing about this, I just go about my life and do the best I can with what I see.

Even more marvelous for those of us who don't :)

No need to be hostile, I get your point. You think science has the answers for everything and that is where you base your beliefs. Science is right, until more is discovered. Why does it mean that that there can't be both?
The reason I brought up philosophy or psychology is because I am saying this is the human way of understanding how we think and how we behave. Nothing is absolute, it is a perspective. It truly amazes me how we discovered the ability to use science to create an understanding of our existence. It doesn't disprove that God doesn't exists. At all.
So, whatever you believe to be true, and however you understand things, that is your truth. Same with me, it doesn't mean that either one of us our right, it is just our perspective on what we know and the limited understanding we have.
We relate to time as something that moves forward, what I am saying is that it isn't PROVEN. We have created an understanding of time moving forward, that doesn't mean that it is. How do you know how long anything has really been here for? That was my point.
Feelings can be monitored by machines and scientists, they cannot be explained as to why we have them,or when we have them. (Other than pain, which is a physical reaction.) So our physical reactions in the brain can be detected, but the reasons we have the emotions we have and where they came from cannot.

Capuchin,

I am late to the board... Do you believe that God exists?

I apologise if I was hostile, I don't think I was though...

It doesn't disprove that flying lemons don't exist either, or peanut-butter-planets, but you think those are absurd, right?

Of course they can be explained in terms of evolutionary science. Feelings make evolutionary sense, they protect your genes. If we had no feelings we wouldn't be motivated to do anything. If we didn't do anythign we would die. Thus feelings evolved, that's why we have them.

I don't believe that God exists except in the minds of people who believe that he does.

I don't believe that God exists except in the minds of people who believe that he does.

What? Talk about a round about answer. Do you have faith God doesn't exist?

I don't think you meant to be hostile. I think you feel that you have to defend yourself at all angles and maybe that frustrates you. I respect your opinions and I understand where you are coming from. I really do. The things I am asking are truly begging the question. I am not trying to be difficult, just trying to open your awareness to things a little bit. I am sorry if made you feel like you have to fight to get your point across.

If there is a supreme being, I would like to have a chat with him/her. (Pretty clever, covering all my bases. Why is God never a woman? Definitely stronger gender.) .

I don't believe God is either a Man or woman! :)

I am glad I started this thread, it just lets everyone have their say on religion...
And makes an enjoyable read for me...

Mountainman, depends how you define faith. If you define faith as the belief in something, even when evidence points to the contrary, then no I don't have faith that god does not exist.

Shatteredsoul, where was I hostile? I didn't feel under pressure to defend myself, I found it quite easy to do.

I find it easy to defend my beliefs as well, that doesn't mean I am not defensive about it.
Look, I am not arguing with you. I think you may want to argue with me because I just said, I don't think that is what you meant to be. It came across that way. That was MY PERCEPTION. Part of the problem is your inability to look at things from any other perspective, other than your own. I was trying to say, the way you are writing, it seems you are frustrated, I am sorry if I made you feel that way. Just take the apology for what it is and stop reading into it. I have no problem debating all day but you see black and I see white. I don't think it will change either of our minds. I have acknowledged that I respect and understand your opinion. That is my choice. You don't have to do either.

If there is one thing we can agree on, it is that we don't agree. The mind and the body are fascinating things, the fact that you don't believe you have a soul that connects it, is where we disagree.

I have blood vessels and a spine that connects them :).

From here, you seem like the frustrated one. Maybe we both cannot see it from other's perspectives :)

No not frustrated with you, frustrated that my stupid mouse keeps freezing up every time I try to post. I will be happy when I have batteries. Boy you sure are a friendly one!! Have a great day my friend, spine and all!!

If there is a supreme being, I would like to have a chat with him/her. (Pretty clever, covering all my bases. Why is God never a woman? Definitely stronger gender.) I have an issue with someone that sits back and watches all the death and destruction, and maybe, just maybe, grant a miracle to those that pray. All the power to those that do, sincerely.
.


My "God" is a woman. As a Wiccan, I worship the Lady, and her consort, the Lord, in all their faces with all their names.

But... that's my choice. I can easily see why others have the faith that they have in other gods (or NOT, in the case of atheism) that they do.

My heart goes out to atheists, actually. I have a hard time defending my minority faith to those that feel I should convert to something more mainstream... I can't imagine the pressure that an atheist has to conform to SOMETHING, to believe in a god/goddess just because someone tells them that it's better, or they'll be happier, or whatever.

People should be left to believe or not as they see fit.

My heart goes out to atheists, actually. I have a hard time defending my minority faith to those that feel I should convert to somethign more mainstream....I can't imagine the pressure that an atheist has to conform to SOMETHING, to believe in a god/goddess just because someone tells them that it's better, or they'll be happier, or whatever.

Meh. You get used to it and ignore people. It actually helps to reinforce why you don't want to be a member of any religion, given all the hate and intolerance they throw around. The only time it bothers me is when a$$hat politicians make comments like this:

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

Guess who said it? Good 'ol Dubya's daddy!

Mountainman, depends how you define faith. If you define faith as the belief in something, even when evidence points to the contrary, then no i don't have faith that god does not exist.

Shatteredsoul, where was I hostile? I didn't feel under pressure to defend myself, I found it quite easy to do.


Faith as defined by Merriam-Webster "something that is believed especially with strong conviction"

So with strong conviction you believe God doesn't exist. And being a scientific, logical person that makes you the person with more faith! See I took the easy way out and just believe (have faith) there is a God and trust in Him without all the answers.

I have no idea what you just said.

I have no idea what you just said.

What I am trying to say is you have mountains of faith to not believe in God at all... and being a logical, scientific person that is contradictory...

Let me ask you this and anyone else that doesn't believe in God

The Library of Congress in Washington D.C. presently contains over 70 million items (books, magazines, journals, etc.). Hhundreds of thousands of these were written by scholars and specialists in the various academic fields. "What percentage of the collective knowledge recorded in the volumes in this library would you say are within your own pool of knowledge and experience?"

What I am trying to say is you have mountains of faith to not believe in God at all....and being a logical, scientific person that is contradictory...

Let me ask you this and anyone else that doesn't believe in God

The Library of Congress in Washington D.C. presently contains over 70 million items (books, magazines, journals, etc.). Hhundreds of thousands of these were written by scholars and specialists in the various academic fields. "What percentage of the collective knowledge recorded in the volumes in this library would you say are within your own pool of knowledge and experience?"
Hmmmm, you have me thinking, this might take a while... LOL

What I am trying to say is you have mountains of faith to not believe in God at all....and being a logical, scientific person that is contradictory... Actually it takes no faith at all.

You don't have faith in believing what you do?

Actually it takes no faith at all.

It actually takes more faith to not believe that God exists at all because you have to constantly disapprove the existence of God to satisify your belief... I can just simply believe and leave it alone

I don't have to disprove anything.

You can't simply believe and let it alone, you feel a need to convert people and spread the 'good news' whereas I couldn't give two poops what religion a person is, as long as they are a good person.

I don't have to disprove anything.

You can't simply believe and let it alone, you feel a need to convert people and spread the 'good news' whereas I couldn't give two poops what religion a person is, as long as they are a good person.
I am going to say you are right on brotha...
And, we wouldn't want you to give two poops... LOL
Being a good person is what all of this boils down to. A believer or not, that is the best answer yet.

I don't have to disprove anything.

You can't simply believe and let it alone, you feel a need to convert people and spread the 'good news' whereas I couldn't give two poops what religion a person is, as long as they are a good person.


I am not trying to convert you, you can only make that decision. I am just trying to shed some light on things the way I see it.

I am gonna say you are right on brotha....
And, we wouldn't want you to give two poops....LOL
Being a good person is what all of this boils down to. a believer or not, that is the best answer yet.


Startover22... you didn't answer my previous question you were thinking hard about?

Well, Mountain MAN, I was just thinking about how many books I haven't read...
AND WHY THAT WOULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN MY FAITH! OR NO FAITH??
I think that could come across the wrong way, your question that is...

My dictionary (Webster's 2003) defines "faith" as:
1. Unquestioning belief, specifically in god, a religion, etc.
2. A particular religion
3. Complete trust or confidence
4. Loyalty

I think what you are trying to argue is that it takes "faith" to believe in god, but it takes "faith" to not believe in god. Looking at the definition of "faith" I'll give you that (sorta) but "faith' in the religious sense is "religious faith" which is very different. Beyond that, I wouldn't say I have " which is very different. Beyond that, I wouldn't say I have " (#3) in science because it's not always right. I have confidence in science, I believe in science, but I do at times, question it. Just because one does not have "religious faith" doesn't mean they are devoid of faith in other applications and meanings.


It actually takes more faith to not believe that God exists at all because you have to constantly disapprove the existence of God to satisify your belief... I can just simply believe and leave it alone

Atheists aren't usually out to disprove god, it's theists who are out to prove he exists. That's why theists say things like " (#3) in science because it's not always right. I have confidence in science, I believe in science, but I do at times, question it. Just because one does not have ". They are trying to show and atheist where god is. As opposed to an atheist who just says, "god is in the sunset and in children's laughter". I don't wake up every morning and have to remind myself there is no god.

Well, Mountain MAN, I was just thinking about how many books I haven't read....
AND WHY THAT WOULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN MY FAITH!! OR NO FAITH???
I think that could come across the wrong way, your question that is...


How is it coming across the wrong way? I am just trying to make a point.

When you believe in something like God, there is no reminder either, HE is just there.
At least for me it is. Just like the child laugh is just there for you... Thanks Jillian. You have made a good point.

How is it coming across the wrong way? I am just trying to make a point.
Maybe I am misunderstanding your question...

My dictionary (Webster's 2003) defines "faith" as:
1. Unquestioning belief, specifically in god, a religion, etc.
2. A particular religion
3. Complete trust or confidence
4. Loyalty

I think what you are trying to argue is that it takes "faith" to believe in god, but it takes "faith" to not believe in god. Looking at the definition of "faith" I'll give you that (sorta) but "faith' in the religious sense is "religious faith" which is very different. Beyond that, I wouldn't say I have "faith" (#3) in science because it's not always right. I have confidence in science, I believe in science, but I do at times, question it. Just because one does not have "religious faith" doesn't mean they are devoid of faith in other applications and meanings.



Atheists aren't usually out to disprove god, it's theists who are out to prove he exists. That's why theists say things like "god is in the sunset and in children's laughter". They are trying to show and atheist where god is. As opposed to an atheist who just says, "a sunset is a sunset and a kid's laugh is a kid's laugh". I don't wake up every morning and have to remind myself there is no god.


I am saying the faith is very abstract and not at all logical or proveable but Atheists have mountains of it because they unquestionably, in complete confidence, and with extreme loyalty believe God doesn't exist?

Maybe I am misunderstanding your question...

My question and point was of the 70 million literary items in the Library of Congress individually only probably know a fraction of a percent... Right? Then "Do you think it is logically possible that God may exist in the 99.9 percent that is outside your pool of knowledge and experience?"

I am saying the faith is very abstract and not at all logical or proveable but Atheists have mountains of it b/c they unquestionably, in complete confidence, and with extreme loyalty believe God doesn't exist??Atheists don't require mountains of faith, why are you making stuff up?

I cannot answer for an atheist... I just can't...

My question and point was of the 70 million literary items in the Library of Congress individually only probably know a fraction of a percent...Right? Then "Do you think it is logically possible that God may exist in the 99.9 percent that is outside your pool of knowledge and experience?"What does that have to do with anything since the Bible is the only book you believe to be true?

The rejoinder for that question is this:

In YOUR SPECIFIC life, where have you had PROOF that God exists?

Just because I can't see gravity doesn't mean I don't know it's there. Same thing with China. I've never experienced the green flash at sunset, or walked on the moon. I've never seen a black hole, or DNA strands through a microscope. All of these things are out of my personal scope of knowledge.

What you're trying to say is that God might be in the things that are out of an atheists personal scope of knowledge... that God exists in the cracks, per se.

The point you're not getting is that to an atheist---it's not GOD in the cracks. It's something not yet explained.

Just because I don't know the answer to something doesn't mean that the answer is God. For all I know, the answer is 42.

Atheists don't require mountains of faith, why are you making stuff up?


You have completely missed the point... and also the Bible is NOT the ONLY book I believe to be true...

No need to be hostile, I get your point. You think science has the answers for everything and that is where you base your beliefs. Science is right, until more is discovered. Why does it mean that that there can't be both?
The reason I brought up philosophy or psychology is because I am saying this is the human way of understanding how we think and how we behave. Nothing is absolute, it is a perspective. It truly amazes me how we discovered the ability to use science to create an understanding of our existence. It doesn't disprove that God doesn't exists. At all.
So, whatever you believe to be true, and however you understand things, that is your truth. Same with me, it doesn't mean that either one of us our right, it is just our perspective on what we know and the limited understanding we have.
We relate to time as something that moves forward, what I am saying is that it isn't PROVEN. We have created an understanding of time moving forward, that doesn't mean that it is. How do you know how long anything has really been here for? That was my point.
Feelings can be monitored by machines and scientists, they cannot be explained as to why we have them,or when we have them. (Other than pain, which is a physical reaction.) So our physical reactions in the brain can be detected, but the reasons why we have the emotions we have and where they came from cannot.

First off again, this has come into an interesting topic and it is exciting to see how different people think and their views. :)
I like when shattered said its our perspective;how we ourselves view things. True, like someone said earlier that if you do believe, in whatever though personally I do believe in God, you have this innate desire to tell everyone what it is you believe and it to be the absolute truth. I don't see anything wrong with that because we all have brains and majority of people can think for themselves and decide whether they wish to believe or not;again going back to your own perception.
Although it seems that people tend to make a bigger deal out of this subject then what it is by bringing in science, although science has helped us a lot, etc. Main point is you can choose to believe in whatever you want. I know what I believe and I do believe it to be true and it is my own personal point of view;opinion. Just because someone else has a different opinion doesn't I'll change my mind, maybe add to my belief if I choose but not likely to persuade me. :)

The rejoinder for that question is this:

in YOUR SPECIFIC life, where have you had PROOF that God exists?

Just because I can't see gravity doesn't mean I don't know it's there. Same thing with China. I've never experienced the green flash at sunset, or walked on the moon. I've never seen a black hole, or DNA strands through a microscope. All of these things are out of my personal scope of knowledge.

What you're trying to say is that God might be in the things that are out of an atheists personal scope of knowledge....that God exists in the cracks, per se.

The point you're not getting is that to an atheist---it's not GOD in the cracks. It's something not yet explained.

Just because I dont' know the answer to something doesn't mean that the answer is God. For all I know, the answer is 42.

All I am saying is that God may exist logically outside of your finite logic or reasoning!

In my life I know God exists because I was at the bottom of the barrel with drugs, booze, women, etc and had enough... started getting depressed and literally cried out that if you are real and you are God than do something to help me... the very next day my stepdad called up and said I have a job offer for you if you can get here by tomorrow (Vegas to Kansas) I left two hours later... God delivered me from myself! That is why I believe the way I do.

First off again, this has come into an interesting topic and it is exciting to see how different people think and their views. :)
I like when shattered said its our perspective;how we ourselves view things. True, like someone said earlier that if you do believe, in whatever though personally I do believe in God, you have this innate desire to tell everyone what it is you believe and it to be the absolute truth. I don't see anything wrong with that because we all have brains and majority of people can think for themselves and decide whether they wish to believe or not;again going back to your own perception.
Although it seems that people tend to make a bigger deal out of this subject then what it is by bringing in science, although science has helped us a lot, and etc. Main point is you can choose to believe in whatever you want. I know what I believe and I do believe it to be true and it is my own personal point of view;opinion. Just because someone else has a different opinion doesn't I'll change my mind, maybe add to my belief if I choose but not likely to persuade me. :)

Says to spread the reputation so I can't give you a greenie,
But you have put it so well...

"I know what I believe and I do believe it to be true and it is my own personal point of view;opinion. Just because someone else has a different opinion doesn't I'll change my mind, maybe add to my belief if I choose but not likely to persuade me."

And this is true for me too... :)

Just because I dont' know the answer to something doesn't mean that the answer is God. For all I know, the answer is 42.

Silly, the answer isn't 42, it's "C". The answer is ALWAYS "C"! :D

Jillian, you seriously need to read Douglas Adams.

The answer is always 42.

Mountainman, unfortunately I'm at work, and don't have time to type out my full response.

I don't knock your faith... but an atheist would say that you yourself found your way out of that barrel, by finally noticing and taking help that was offered to you. We, ourselves, can change our worlds.

Both points of view are valid, and both can have perfectly happy adherents.

All I am saying is that God may exist logically outside of your finite logic or reasoning!

In my life I know God exists b/c I was at the bottom of the barrel with drugs, booze, women, etc and had enough...started getting depressed and literally cried out that if you are real and you are God than do something to help me...the very next day my stepdad called up and said I have a job offer for you if you can get here by tommorrow (Vegas to Kansas) I left two hours later.....God delivered me from myself!! That is why I believe the way I do.

I'm glad He delievered you, that's a story you are able to share with others. So many get cared away though and end up trying to force it on them and end up driving them away... Not to say that is what you will do, just saying I've seen so many people do that, but that is a wonderful story that, if you choose, can share with others who have experienced similar situations. :)

And one last thing to add is that we are finite but as I believe God is INfinite(everlasting). We die... we don't exist forever in our human forms or the form we were born into and given. :)

Jillian, you seriously need to read Douglas Adams.

The answer is always 42.

Mountainman, unfortunately I'm at work, and don't have time to type out my full response.

I don't knock your faith...but an atheist would say that you yourself found your way out of that barrel, by finally noticing and taking help that was offered to you. We, ourselves, can change our worlds.

Both points of view are valid, and both can have perfectly happy adherents.


An atheist would say that... but what would you say?

I'd say that Karma works. Karma ALWAYS works.

Somehow along the way, you helped someone else. The good vibes from that came back to you threefold, and gave you the help you needed, when you needed it.

While I believe that having faith in the Lady has a tremendous influence on my life, I also think that she leaves most things alone, and lets our own actions determine the course of our lives--good or bad.

Mountainman. I do not have faith in God not existing. I stated that in the post before yours. I have a need for evidence.

I wrote "no i don't have faith that god does not exist"

To which you wrote "So with strong conviction you believe God doesn't exist."

I don't see how you reached that conclusion.
Don't put words into my mouth again, especially when I have stated the exact opposite.

I'd say that Karma works. Karma ALWAYS works.

Somehow along the way, you helped someone else. The good vibes from that came back to you threefold, and gave you the help you needed, when you needed it.

While I believe that having faith in the Lady has a tremendous influence on my life, I also think that she leaves most things alone, and lets our own actions determine the course of our lives--good or bad.

OK... I guess I just feel that giving so much credit to karma or to chance just is not enough to explain everything else. Just looking at the intricacies of life and/or the miracle of life that there HAS to be a God. It just is too random for there not to be. Thanks for the hearty discussion.

mountainman. I do not have faith in God not existing. I stated that in the post before yours. I have a need for evidence.

I wrote "no i don't have faith that god does not exist"

To which you wrote "So with strong conviction you believe God doesn't exist."

I don't see how you reached that conclusion.
Don't put words into my mouth again, especially when I have stated the exact opposite.


That is refreshing to hear that "you do not have faith that God doesn't exist" so there is still hope that one day you will have an experience where He will reveal himself to you and you won't miss it. God bless.

Boy, with an issue like God things can get heated. I think the opportunity to share our thoughts and differences is part of what makes life so interesting. I don't think that we have to be angry that others don't see things the way we do, we have to learn from it. I am thankful for all the knowledge that comes forth from posts such as these, and if it widens my perspective and awareness of others, it truly connects us in a way that can only be positive. So, regardless of what anyone thinks, our words and our own beliefs have brought us together, for no rhyme or scientific reason, just because of the timing and the interest. That is an amazing thing. I don't think you have to believe in God to be happy. I don't know if feeling joy, love and compassion has to be a religion, but it should be a universal understanding of how to make like on this planet, in this existence, better for all of humankind. That is my purpose and focus in life. I find that since I have focused on my own feelings and values, I feel that some greater force connects us all and allows us to experience all the wonderful opportunities, that comes with being a human being. The sense of touch, smell, taste, sight, hearing, and the emotions we can feel and create between each other, are fascinating and can be overwhelming. We don't have to put labels on people to be one thing or the other. I hope that you can see people and create relationships with people that bring you joy and help you to feel loved. That is what truly matters. Whether science created that, or God created science, well just isn't the point here. We aren't going to all agree. That is o.k. We can begin to bridge the gaps between cultures, and countries to be more united and more peaceful, this would somehow start a chain reaction of goodness and love. Wouldn't that be more amazing than trying to make everyone look at life the same way? WE have to look at the bigger picture here. It doesn't matter that Capuchin needs evidence to believe in God, that is what his mind and experiences have taught him. What does matter is that we listen without judgment and try to become more compassionate in the process. The process of life is more important than the destiny, especially if there is no God.
Part of the problem is that it is difficult to embrace God when the idea is always wrapped around religion. It might be easier for people to think about God if they didn't feel pressured to conform to a specific religion. I have gotten over that need and that pressure and I don't identify myself as religious, I have a relationship with God, that is within me. I nurture and develop my spirituality through prayer, meditation and by trying to be loving, compassionate and forgiving. This is my truth and my way. I am not imposing it on others, but I would encourage us all to embrace our differences and become one, for the sake of saving this world that is rapidly deteriorating because of violence, hate, greed and judgmental, narrow beliefs. I hope we can use this thread to begin to accept all of our own differences to come together. Peace to all of you. Only good Karma can come from that, right Synnen??

That is refreshing to hear that "you do not have faith that God doesn't exist" so there is still hope that one day you will have an experience where He will reveal himself to you and you won't miss it. God bless.And we hope that some day you will drop the charade of religion and begin to think for yourself. How does that sound?

NeedKarma, I understand your frustration with religion. I respect your differences and your beliefs, now can we move past our differences to create unity in some way? You don't need God to do that. It begins with each of us. Yes, we have the responsibility to become the best person we can be. We need to look past those who see differently and recognize we are all the same, we share the same earth. We all have families and relationships and jobs. They all come with struggle and disappointment and pain. Finding a way to be compassionate to those that you find difficulty with, will bring you peace, regardless of what you believe.

NeedKarma, I understand your frustration with religion. Nah, I'm not frustrated with religion at all. I'm frustrated at the individual who thinks others are defective for choosing a different belief. :)

FOr those of you citing scientific or God theories from great thinkers of the past than I am surprised nobody has mentioned Plato and Socraties view on the subject of God. That's about as logical as it gets coming from those two fellers. If you have time to read up on it than please do so, any arguments or ideas that contracdict what they wrote or argued would be quite facinating I would say.

Allowing someone to make you frustrated, only gives your own power away, you should utilize your energy in a way that creates harmony and not discord. No matter what you believe, or what they believe.

Hello again:

97% of the people in the world have a religion.. I don't care that my views go against 97% of the people in the world including many of the world's greatest thinkers. Who knows, maybe somebody will write a book about me, and call me the greatest thinker of them all?

excon

PS> I'm a Jew. Maybe they'll declare me a God, like they did one of my lanzmen.

I believe in science. That isn't to say I don't believe in god.

The second law of thermaldynamics basically says that without intervention from someone outside our world, our world itself would move toward a state of "equilibrium," or basically that things don't become more organized over time by themselves (i.e, evolution). This is called Entropy.

Unfortunately, the second law of thermal dynamics also states that this only works on a macroscopic scale (i.e, the entire universe). Microscopically (with just 2 molocules,) this can be disproved by the fact that a slow moving molocule can collide with a faster one, and their speeds won't necessarily both move toward a central, more equal speed.

While it is a stretch to say that the same could happen for something as big as an entire planet, it is still possible.

So thermaldynamics still says there can be a god, it just doesn't say anything about the Christian God.

excon, Or maybe you are God.

And we hope that some day you will drop the charade of religion and begin to think for yourself. How does that sound?


It is not a charade of religion that was cast upon me llike you are making it out to be, it was something I personally have experienced time and time again that has made me believe the way I do. My relationship with God is personal and because of what He has done for me I like to share it in hopes that other people would experience the same. I wouldn't be here debating if I couldn't think for myself.

It is not a charade of religion that was cast upon me llike you are making it out to be, it was something I personally have experienced time and time again that has made me believe the way I do. My relationship with God is personal and because of what He has done for me I like to share it in hopes that other people would experience the same. I wouldn't be here debating if I couldn't think for myself.
I give you credit by spreading the word. It does seem as though you may be spreading and pushing. I can look past that... some people will never WANT what you want so sometimes, we need to leave well enough alone.
Your experiences are wonderful, I appreciate you sharing them here with all of us. Hugs, Start

I give you credit by spreading the word. It does seem as though you may be spreading and pushing. I can look past that....some people will never WANT what you want so sometimes, we need to leave well enough alone.
Your experiences are wonderful, I appreciate you sharing them here with all of us. Hugs, Start


Thanks for your feedback, I do tend to be passionate about what I believe in not just my belief system... and sometimes (most of the time, if you ask my wife) antagonistic. God bless.

YOu are coming from a place of good intentions and that is always good. It just isn't always what people are going to agree with or want to hear. Sometimes people just want to be right and that's OK too, it just doesn't affect change, or bring about a positive result.

I think this forum makes quite a fine line between spreading and pushing. It seems those that don't believe in God take any idea about God as the speaker PUSHING it on them and casting them down for not believing, believe me that is not the intention of anyone. (I thought that was funny "beleive me", if you guys don't laugh at my jokes than dammit I will:)

Besides startover, what happened to us agreeing on talking about GIRLS :)

Yes, you are a bit passionate! Have a great day! And God bless you too.

I think this forum makes quite a fine line between spreading and pushing. It seems those that don't beleive in God take any idea about God as the speaker PUSHING it on them and casting them down for not beleiving, beleive me that is not the intention of anyone. (I thought that was funny "beleive me", if you guys don't laugh at my jokes than dammit i will:)

Besides startover, what happened to us agreeing on talking about GIRLS :)
I am a girl... but I don't mind talking about them... where do we go for that? LOL
And yes, I crack myself up all the time! Go Hawks!

YOu are coming from a place of good intentions and that is always good. It just isn't always what people are going to agree with or want to hear. Sometimes people just want to be right and that's ok too, it just doesn't affect change, or bring about a positive result.


And someone disagreeing with me doesn't offend me like it seems to with others and I also completely understand that a select group of people really don't want to hear what I believe... I also totally agree people want (need) to be right but to be right you must at sometime first agree that you were wrong... Debate about ones beliefs always hits people at the core of who they are

I believe in science. That isn't to say I don't believe in god.

The second law of thermaldynamics basically says that without intervention from someone outside our world, our world itself would move toward a state of "equilibrium," or basically that things don't become more organized over time by themselves (i.e, evolution). This is called Entropy.

Unfortunately, the second law of thermal dynamics also states that this only works on a macroscopic scale (i.e, the entire universe). Microscopically (with just 2 molocules,) this can be disproved by the fact that a slow moving molocule can collide with a faster one, and their speeds won't necessarily both move toward a central, more equal speed.

While it is a stretch to say that the same could happen for somthing as big as an entire planet, it is still possible.

So thermaldynamics still says there can be a god, it just doesn't say anything about the Christian God.

Did anyone else notice that I said thermaldynamics? What the hell is wrong with me? I need my coffee...

Politics and religion seem to spark a debate even in the most shy person. I think its great and I too don't take it personally. Why not take personal responsibility in being a loving and kind person? It doesn't take anything more than choosing it to make a difference. NO MATTER WHAT YOU BELIEVE!

Politics and religion seem to spark a debate even in the most shy person. I think its great and I too don't take it personally. Why not take personal responsibility in being a loving and kind person? It doesn't take anything more than choosing it to make a difference. NO MATTER WHAT YOU BELIEVE!!


Right on!

"Words, words, words, I’m so sick of words. It’s words all day through, First from him, now from you. Is that all you blighters can do?" Eliza Doolittle—My Fair Lady

I can't believe I read the whole thread. It strikes me that a lot of misunderstanding about these matters arises because the same words mean different things to different people. For example:
I am saying the faith is very abstract and not at all logical or proveable but Atheists have mountains of it b/c they unquestionably, in complete confidence, and with extreme loyalty believe God doesn't exist??
Implication: Faith is a prerequisite and precursor to all belief in anything whatsoever.
And:
Atheists don't require mountains of faith, why are you making stuff up?
Implication: Faith and belief are just two different words for the same thing, and atheists don't have or need it.

I just love word etymologies. Learning the history of a word's origins and evolution of meaning has often led me to "Aha!" moments. Here are some (from the Online Etymology Dictionary (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=&searchmode=none)) that seem relevant to the discussion.

believe
O.E. belyfan, earlier geleafa (Mercian), gelefa (Northumbrian), gelyfan (W.Saxon) "believe," from P.Gmc. *ga-laubjan "hold dear, love," from PIE base *leubh- "to like, desire" (see love). Spelling beleeve is common till 17c.; then altered perhaps by influence of relieve. As a synonym for "Christian," believer is attested from 1549. To believe on instead of in was more common in 16c. But now is a peculiarity of theology; believe of also sometimes was used in 17c.

faith
c.1250, "duty of fulfilling one's trust," from O.Fr. Feid, from L. fides "trust, belief," from root of fidere "to trust," from PIE base *bhidh-/*bhoidh- (cf. Gk. Pistis; see bid). For sense evolution, see belief. Theological sense is from 1382; religions called faiths since c.1300. Faith-healer is from 1885

I think TKR makes an important point here:

Science and religious teachings are methods of explaining, to each his own.

explanation
1382, from L. explanationem noun of action from explanare "to make plain or clear, explain," lit. "make level, flatten," from ex- "out" + planus "flat" (see plane (1)). Originally explane, spelling altered by infl. Of plain. The verb explain is first attested 1513.

I think science and religion are just two different ways to "flatten" the multidimensional complexity of human experience, life, thought and emotion. But in either case, the "explanation" is something less than what is explained, because its dimensionality is reduced, approximations and simplifications are made, and peripheral factors are ignored. All of which is necessary to make it "flat enough" for the rational mind to grasp. The arguments arise over the relative satisfactory-ness of alternative explanations. Every explanation is a story. Whether the story is a "good explanation" is in the ear of the hearer.

It's funny, in discussions between theists and atheists, my sympathies more often than not lean toward the atheist's side. But the radical anti-religionists (Richard Dawkins and his ilk) irritate me just as much as the radical religionists. I recently came across a coinage that seems more like what feels right to me: apatheist (Apatheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism); The Church of Apatheism (http://www.wunderland.com/WTS/Ginohn/cetera/apatheism.html)), i.e. someone who doesn't think the question of God's existence is interesting enough to even think about.

A lot of scientist-types who are often accused of being atheists would be more accurately termed apatheists, I think, because they realize that the scientific method is just not the right tool for the job of "explaining" subjective states of consciousness. Of course, there are adherents of what I would call scientism who maintain the scientific method is the right tool for every job, and that there is no reason, in principle, why it can't eventually solve every riddle and provide an overwhelmingly persuasive explanation for anything whatsoever, objective or subjective, physical or ethereal. As, for example...
But science can explain feelings, we can monitor them on a MRI scan, we can tell if people are lying because of their emotional states, we can go "ping, yeah i reckon he's happy", maybe not very accurately, but technology is getting better all the time. Feelings are measureable and they exist. Time is measureable and it exists. What we feel when there's a sunset is measurable and it exists. God is not measurable except as a personal feeling or thought, and that's exactly what i believe he is, he's not physical, he's your way of dealing with the world and he's within you, he's personal to you.
My response is, "Well, not exactly." What can be measured is the level of bio-electro-chemical activity in particular areas of the organ we call the brain. We can correlate these measurements to what subjects say they were feeling at the time, but that's not quite the same as measuring feelings, is it? And even if we know what part of the brain is active when we have certain feelings, does that constitute an "explanation" of feelings? It does "flatten" them a bit, I guess, but not flat enough to be very satisfactory my mind, at least.

Another etymology:
evident
1382, from L. evidentem (nom. Evidens) "perceptible, clear, obvious," from ex- "fully, out of" + videntem (nom. videns), prp. Of videre "to see" (see vision). Evidence (c.1300) is L.L. evidentia "proof," originally "distinction." After c.1500 it began to oust witness in legal senses.

In other words, evidence is something "seen outside" of our subjective consciousness, so the whole concept of "evidence" of subjective states of mind and emotion is really an oxymoron. Seeing an MRI picture of my brain activity can be "evidence" of my subjective state to someone else, but not to me. To me, it's a byproduct, not a cause or an explanation.

Great thread! Comments? Responses?

My comment would be... It is OK to feel and believe different things. We could be talking about poop and someone would get it all wrong in my eyes... I would get it all wrong in theirs.
I do believe that we all have a something, some just don't want to name it God. Some people call it a gut feeling, karma, a miracle maybe.. Good, let it be as you want it too. You have that right as far as I am concern...

Ordinary guy, I am aware that right now we are loosely correlating, but that's how science works. Newton loosely correlated the laws of motion when he first started. I see no barrier in the future to having a better machine with more correlation, until we are at a point where we can read thoughts and feelings as accurately as we can measure a heartbeat.

A simple experiment would show whether feelings are caused by brain activity in certain areas or whether the chemicals are a result of emotion. Work out where someone's happy center is and cut it out, and see if they are ever happy again.
Of course. There are certain real world barriers to such an experiment, which is what makes part of exploring the brain a mystery until technology progresses to a point where we don't need to cut people up. (maybe we can find a way to just "switch it off". I believe that this kind of thing is being done recently, and is obviously ongoing).

Believe
O.E. belyfan, earlier geleafa (Mercian), gelefa (Northumbrian), gelyfan (W.Saxon) "believe," from P.Gmc. *ga-laubjan "hold dear, love," from PIE base *leubh- "to like, desire" (see love). Spelling beleeve is common till 17c.; then altered perhaps by influence of relieve. As a synonym for "Christian," believer is attested from 1549. To believe on instead of in was more common in 16c. But now is a peculiarity of theology; believe of also sometimes was used in 17c.

Faith
c.1250, "duty of fulfilling one's trust," from O.Fr. Feid, from L. fides "trust, belief," from root of fidere "to trust," from PIE base *bhidh-/*bhoidh- (cf. Gk. Pistis; see bid). For sense evolution, see belief. Theological sense is from 1382; religions called faiths since c.1300. Faith-healer is from 1885

Thank you OrdinaryGuy for your very different thoughts on my question-

I "hold dear" my "duty of fulfilling my trust" to the Creator (as I believe) of the universe and beyond.
Now that sounds beautiful and it makes sense too.
We like to hold dear what we believe to be the truth,and we like to fulfill our trusts to the best we can...

What about intuition and de ja vu? I know they exist, because I have experienced both. How do you explain a mother sensing that something is wrong with her child? Or when you visit a place you have never been, or meet someone you have never met and you know you have been there or seen them before? You could chalk it up to coincidence, but I think intuition or a gut feeling , is something that no one can explain. Do we need a scientific theory to say that also exists? How does the brain and the body pick up on other people's energy, or when danger is approaching? Machines that can read thoughts, detect emotions, or explain what activity is going on, don't explain where we get the ability to have it. They just show how the body and brain operate and look while having an emotion or feeling. That doesn't explain the origin or why those things exist. Why do we have emotions at all? Why have feelings? Why have opinions? Yes we can evaluate them, but science cannot explain why or where they come from.

So how can you explain it then?

NK, Are you asking me or shatteredsoul?

Shattered. Sorry about that.

So how can you explain it then?


She may be saying you can't scientifically explain any of them so to a person who holds true to only proveable things, those things don't exist.

Sorry I just assummed Shattered is a woman... sorry if you are not!!

Agreed. But they are not explained by any other methods as well. Man is a complicated animal.

No but we all believe they exist?

déjà vu is generally believed in science to be a case of faulty memory, our brain tells us that the experience we are seeing is being recalled rather than being seen for the first time. It really is a marvel, considering the complexity of the brain, that more of us don't have much bigger memory anomalies than this.

As for intuition, it can be explained as knowledge that you have from previous experiences that can be immediately applied to the problem, and thus needs very little thought.

As I have said I asked this question not to argue but out of curiosity I too have my ideas on this topic but I am waiting until I am really ready to jump into this conversation...

I am a woman, and a hot one at that!! But that is besides the point. LOL My point was, everyone cannot explain everything. Life is a mystery, as are we. Scientists cannot explain it all, therefore it is our beliefs that lead us. I wasn't trying to prove anything, just pointing out that scientists don't have all the answers because quite frankly, they are human too. ( I was referring to the post about how we can detect where feelings and emotions come from.)

Intuition I believe in, it's a combination of life experiences. Déjà-vu is up for discussion (link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A9j%C3%A0_vu)). But I certainly agree that we have emotions, feelings and opinions, who would disagree with that?

As I have said I asked this question not to argue but out of curiosity I too have my ideas on this topic but I am waiting until I am really ready to jump into this conversation...There have been 200 posts, what are you waiting for??

There have been 200 posts, what are you waiting for???
LMAO!

Agreed. But they are not explained by any other methods as well. Man is a complicated animal.


We agreed on something:D

Ordinary guy, I am aware that right now we are loosely correlating, but that's how science works. Newton loosely correlated the laws of motion when he first started. I see no barrier in the future to having a better machine with more correlation, until we are at a point where we can read thoughts and feelings as accurately as we can measure a heartbeat.
I took a bit of liberty with your previous post in citing it as an example of scientism. But here you do seem to reinforce my inference that you think the scientific method is the right tool for every job. So let me ask you straight up: Do you believe (hold dear and love) that the scientific method is adequate to provide a satisfactory (to you, at least) explanation for every phenomenon whatsoever? Do you see any inherent limitation on the kind of phenomena that can be examined and explained by its use? It does seem to require a human being to conceptualize the problem as a theoretical model, operationalize the model to formulate a testable hypothesis, design an experiment to test it, and interpret the resulting observations and measurements to construct a coherent explanation story. Is this (the human mind) a significant limitation? What it really comes down to, I suppose, is whether there is anything whatsoever beyond the reach of the rigorous application of logic, experiment and observation by the rational human intellect. The only limitation you have alluded to so far is the precision of measurement technology. Is that the only one there is, in your view?

Karma exists, it cannot be determined where it comes from. Somehow what we put out in the world, comes back to us. That energy can't be seen or detected, but it is there, the universe somehow is aware of it, and it is sent back the same way. Scientists cannot disprove it, just as they cannot disprove there is a "God".
The ability to have emotions and feelings can be detected and monitored, we can't be sure where it originates from, or why we have them.
Intuition has saved lives and prevented people from putting themselves in danger that they have never experienced before.
Just from a personal experience with de ja vu, knowing that a bridge and heavily wooded park is up around the corner, on a certain street, when you have never even visited the state in your lifetime, cannot be explained, it just is. That is from when I was a child.
Science was created by man, and therefore has flaws like all of us and it isn't absolute.
Life is a mystery, no one can explain it and that is why we are all given our own perspectives.
Ordinary guy hit the nail on the head. So, is then the precision of measurement technology the only view that holds true for you?

I have put in quotations I have taken from different sites by different authors (links are below) which shows my viewpoint clearly and some reasons I believe in a Creator.

http://saif_w.tripod.com/curious/Misc/created_or_chance.htm
“The Macro/Micro patterns
If we look at the universe at large we find that it is composed of vast areas of empty space and also other areas containing shapeless matter in the form of hot gases, dark matter and formed stars. These stars group together to form galaxies. Our galaxy, 'The Milky Way' has within it no less than 100 billion individual stars. Our star, the sun, has nine planets in orbit around it. Most of these planets have a number of moons again in orbit. The basic force that governs the movement of all these bodies is gravity. The moons rotate around their planets, which all rotate around the mother star, which in our case is the sun. Similarly, all these stars revolve round the centre of gravity of the galaxy.

Galaxies group together to form clusters of galaxies and once again individual galaxies revolve round the centre of gravity of the cluster. Clusters group together to form super-clusters, and these obey the same laws. These are the largest units in the universe as we know it today.
However, and if we proceed in the opposite direction, we notice that the similarity is truly remarkable. If we look at the other end of the scale and examine the atom which is the smallest form of substance able to exist in a chemical reaction, we find that it is composed of electrons revolving round a nucleus, in the same way as stars revolve round the centre of gravity of their galaxies.”
-------------------------------
------------------------
http://saif_w.tripod.com/curious/evolution/muz/muz-part4.html#xperiament

“We know that mirrors and burning lenses date back as far as to the age of written records and Egyptian ophthalmologic recipes go back at least to Papyrus Ebers, copied before 1500 from considerable older sources. We find advanced theories of visual processes and of light in the oldest extent Greek philosophical works. Thus vision, mankind's “most noble sense” has been the subject of every notable philosopher and practitioner of medicine since ancient times. The Atomists had their theories of vision and so did Plato. For the former, and they were by no means unanimous on it, vision required a material effluence to be conveyed from the visible object to the eye.”
------------------------------------------------
I cannot comprehend the fact that some people believe that the above mentioned macro.micro patterns exist by chance.

Even if science can explain what happens when we look at something, I believe this shows the chemical reaction in our body, but science cannot explain to me how this sense of seeing came about (not just humans, but any animal (as evolutionists believe everything evolved).

I do not believe the universe to be infinite,
It had a beginning and it will have an end.

I respect an atheists view to be his own choice,but I cannot even imagine myself drawing that conclusion as the “science can explain all” theory does not make sense to me.

I read science and understand many things from what scientists are trying to discover by studying the universe and the living things on earth.
I cannot seem to come to the conclusion that the trees around us came about by chance and in that chance they became an organism which works within itself by producing its own food and taking up water from underground etc(I know science helps explain the process of how this works).
I cannot even conclude that for example a giraffe eats from the tops of trees because it elongated its neck to reach the part of the plant others cannot reach OR that the plant grew thorns below a certain level to protect itself from predators. But I do believe and can conclude that a certain tree was made"(by a Creator) in such a way to facilitate certain animals to easily feed on it, in turn have its seeds dispersed to various different spots…etc

I know this argument has been presented before, but I just need those who support the evolution theory or science to know that I do believe in science, but I believe that science helps explain God's creations in order for us to marvel at them.
I have not included any of religious texts which I believe in(and shows that what some scientists are proving today has already been mentioned in the Quran) as it maybe considered inappropriate for this thread.

As I said I state my opinion not to argue but to share my thoughts.
I thank you all for sharing yours and proving to me that what I believed was true all along and reading up all the posts has made me stronger in my faith and belief.:)

Science was created by man, and therefore has flaws like all of us and it isn't absolute.So is the bible and the koran and all other religious texts. We all choose our reality I guess.

Although many beleivers suscribe to the notion that the Bible was written through man by God. If untampered with than it would be absolute, we will never really know that.

Sorry, the Bible and other religious texts.

So is the bible and the koran and all other religious texts. We all choose our reality I guess.

You know I couldn't live with myself if I didn't say...

The Bible is indeed true and accurate and inspired by God.

And the best selling book of all time and full of incredible wisdom on every page.

To further that point, you don't need to believe in God to agree with what He is saying. Well He if you do believe and it (the Bible or other religious texts if you don't).

So is the bible and the koran and all other religious texts. We all choose our reality I guess.

This may be your view, but I believe the original Bible would not have had flaws, and the Quran in its Arabic form has no flaws (not to say that all believe the book to be without flaws), in the transliteration some meaings may have been changed/lost.

Soooo... the Bible is absolutely right, and everything in it should be followed, since it's the Voice of God speaking through the pages? Am I understanding correctly what you are saying here?

You are to understand that it is from God(if a beleiver) and to do your best to live your life in accordance with what it says. What facinates me is that if you were to actually try hard to follow it you would be amazed at how you feel. I mean if someone followed the Bible to an exact T or even close you all would think he/she was a wonderful person no?

I wonder what gets people so hung up on the notion of MUST follow the rules. The golden rule is do unto others as you would have done to you, I really don't think you need to believe inanything to agree with that.

Soooo....the Bible is absolutely right, and everything in it should be followed, since it's the Voice of God speaking through the pages? Am I understanding correctly what you are saying here?

Yes that is what I believe. Now I feel a set-up in here so let me explain your questions to the best of my ability.

I mean if someone followed the Bible to an exact T or even close you all would think he/she was a wonderful person no?Hello again, BMI:

No!

Don't people discriminate against gays because the Bible says something about men lying down with men?

That's not wonderful at all. Actually, it sucks!!

excon

Hello again, BMI:

No!

Don't people discriminate against gays because the Bible says something about men lying down with men?

That's not wonderful at all. Actually, it sucks!!!

excon



Yes but the bible says more and more clearly that we should not judge lest we be judged and of course the two greatest commandments 1) Love the Lord with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and 2) Love your neighbor as yourself

I mean if someone followed the Bible to an exact T or even close you all would think he/she was a wonderful person no?.Don't need the bible for that. You don't need a book to tell you not to murder or commit adultery. My wife cuts her hair and wears pants, all such women in the world would be called apostates under your idea.

Hi ex-con,

That's neither here nor there, whether gays are dicriminated against because of the Bible, some do others don't. I mean I am Italianand my friends discriminate against gays all the time, well that's to saythey do not like it and they makefun of gays, they do not do it because of the BIble I can tell you that.

Its just that women are just so much prettier:)

The golden rule is do unto others as you would have done to you, i really don't think you need to beleive inanything to agree with that.We find commomn ground! The golden rule indeed transcends all religions. At least you can see the light at the end of the tunnel - you don't need to follow strict rules from a 2000 year old book.

HI NK,

You may not need the Bible for that but then again it is 2007. The Bible taught that way back ago, and it has lasted through the ages, what makes sense B.C makes just as much sense as it does in 2007. Thanks for that post, just another marvel of the Bible, it stands through time, whatelse does that?

Science books, medical books and the like all change, this never does.

I mean i am Italianand my friends discriminate against gays all the timeSo why are you still friends with them?

What does that mean? Is it to suggest that because I am friends with them I am like them, or that the BIble would tell me to not be friends with them. Actually you may be right, my friends are idiots, but I'm not perfect and neither is anyone.

I could hang around anyone and find fault, just likethey can in me, humans are not perfect, we can't be, otherwise we would beGod.

Don't need the bible for that. You don't need a book to tell you not to murder or commit adultery. My wife cuts her hair and wears pants, all such women in the world would be called apostates under your idea.


Where did you get that?!

Where did you get that?!!!!!!You don't have Pentacosts where you are? They are strict christians like yourself.
More here for ya: Pentecostalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentecostalism)

You don't have Pentacosts where you are? They are strict christians like yourself.
More here for ya: Pentecostalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentecostalism)

You are talking about a religious belief not a biblical based belief... very very different my friend. Find that in the bible?

So... Incest is okay, then, right? Since Lot lay down with his daughters and all that jazz.

And so is making sure a guy gets killed because you covet his wife, right? Didn't David arrange Uriah's death so he could hook up with Bathsheba?

Let's not even TALK about the great Jezebel---makeup makes you a whore, did you know that?

And bigamy--wouldn't that be okay then too?

The Golden Rule is great. The rest of it (what's left after political moves that removed parts of it so that they could take power away from others and give it to themselves) is pure sophistry.

What I'm trying to say is that there are some really great ideas in the Bible---but there are also some really horrible ones. Women shouldn't be subjugated because the Bible says so. Blacks shouldn't be slaves because Ham or Shem or whoever looked at a drunk Noah and laughed his rear end off. Gays shouldn't be ostricized because of the sins of 2 ancient cities that don't even exist anymore.

The only line in the Bible I truly love, and the line which is MOST ignored is this: Judgement is mine, saith the Lord.

You are talking about a religious belief not a biblical based belief...very very different my friend. Find that in the bible?Every single christian denomination claims to follow the bible.

So...Incest is okay, then, right? Since Lot lay down with his daughters and all that jazz.

And so is making sure a guy gets killed because you covet his wife, right? Didn't David arrange Uriah's death so he could hook up with Bathsheba?

Let's not even TALK about the great Jezebel---makeup makes you a whore, did you know that?

And bigamy--wouldn't that be okay then too?

The Golden Rule is great. The rest of it (what's left after political moves that removed parts of it so that they could take power away from others and give it to themselves) is pure sophistry.

What I'm trying to say is that there are some really great ideas in the Bible---but there are also some really horrible ones. Women shouldn't be subjugated because the Bible says so. Blacks shouldn't be slaves because Ham or Shem or whoever looked at a drunk Noah and laughed his rear end off. Gays shouldn't be ostricized because of the sins of 2 ancient cities that don't even exist anymore.

The only line in the Bible I truly love, and the line which is MOST ignored is this: Judgement is mine, saith the Lord.
Very well put Synn, this is the one of the many reasons I have a hard time with my faith...
Something's we can apply, and something's we just cannot in this day and age. My friend, I am glad you know how to use these words and I take value in them.

Every single christian denomination claims to follow the bible.
CLAIMS TO FOLLOW THE BIBLE... CLAIMS is the word we need to look at... doesn't mean they do. Aww crap, I keep agreeing with you, damn it!

I cannot comprehend the fact that some people believe that the above mentioned macro.micro patterns exist by chance.
I'm not sure who you would include in the "some people" category, but if you include astrophysicists and elementary particle physicists, I think it's a misrepresentation of current scientific thought to say that they think the macro and micro patterns of matter and energy in the observable universe arose "by chance". My understanding, as a literate but "casually informed" layman, is that they think these patterns arose through the action of a few fundamental forces acting on several forms and types of matter over a period of about 13.5 billion years since the Big Bang, i.e. the Beginning. This is quite different than saying that the current state of the cosmos came to be what it is "by chance"--quite the opposite, in fact. As to why there was a big bang at all, or what came before it, science is simply silent. Again, silence is not the same as saying that it happened "by chance". It happened, we don't know why, but given that it did, we can construct a credible story about how it has unfolded since then. If you want to attach the name "God" to the cause of the Big Bang, the supplier of the energy it released, the author of the laws of light and time, and gravity and subatomic forces, that's fine with me, and I would imagine most scientists, because they recognize that these matters are beyond the reach or the interest of science. To a scientist, figuring out how the universe works is so interesting that they hardly have the time to wonder why it exists at all.


Even if science can explain what happens when we look at something, I believe this shows the chemical reaction in our body, but science cannot explain to me how this sense of seeing came about (not just humans, but any animal (as evolutionists believe everything evolved).
As I said earlier, a "good explanation" is in the ear of the hearer. I think a lot of people dislike scientific explanations because they've really only been exposed to caricatures of them, not the thing itself. The details of scientific knowledge (physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics) are quite time consuming and laborious to learn, so not everybody cares enough to learn enough to be able to follow the explanation all the way through. Rather than go to all that work, it's often easier to just say "God did it" and go on with the business of living.

For myself, I'm quite content to have no explanation at all for any number of things. I'd rather do without one than to cling to and defend one that seems farfetched to me, whether scientific or religious in origin.

I do not believe the universe to be infinite,
It had a beginning and it will have an end.
This is consistent with scientific thought about the beginning, but I don't think there's as much consensus about the end.

I respect an atheists view to be his own choice,but I cannot even imagine myself drawing that conclusion as the “science can explain all” theory does not make sense to me.
I don't think that even all scientists believe that science can explain all, if by "all" you mean to include questions of "why things exist" as well as "how things work".

I read science and understand many things from what scientists are trying to discover by studying the universe and the living things on earth.
I cannot seem to come to the conclusion that the trees around us came about by chance and in that chance they became an organism which works within itself by producing its own food and taking up water from underground etc(I know science helps explain the process of how this works).
I cannot even conclude that for example a giraffe eats from the tops of trees because it elongated its neck to reach the part of the plant others cannot reach OR that the plant grew thorns below a certain level to protect itself from predators. But I do believe and can conclude that a certain tree was made"(by a Creator) in such a way to facilitate certain animals to easily feed on it, in turn have its seeds dispersed to various different spots…etc

So you seem to be saying that you like the scientific explanations of how trees or giraffes work, at this point in time, but you don't like the scientific explanations of how trees and giraffes came to exist at all. Well, I do agree that "scientific" explanations about how the distant past may have given rise to (i.e. caused) the present are harder to follow, harder to test, and harder to accept than those that provide explanations for what we can observe and measure in the present. Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong, but it ought to make people who accept them a bit more tolerant of those who don't, at least not yet.

Hi Ordinaryguy,
Thanks for your input on my post.

I accept science and scientists in their quest to find the how's of things work have provided for us who believe in a Higher power to be more appreciative of the intricate processes going on within our bodies and beyond.

I agree that the earth took a long time to form and that humans came many years later, before that the earth must have seen strange creatures and plants which in turn in their deaths enriched the earth with many materials which today we see as minerals and salts.

I agree that the earth must have seen asteroids crashing to earth and this would have brought about a change in the earths surface.

I also believe that ancient civilisations have come and gone and I believe some of them were more advanced in their knowledge than the present generation in the sense that they did not have the tools we have today to facilitate their studies,but still they advanced in many areas of life.Yet we only see their remenants in archeological sites.This makes me believe that each generation has their appointed time and whether we believe or not everything that has a beginning must have a end.

I also believe when scientists say that certain animal have become extinct down the ages and new species have been found.I can't say whether I totally agree with evolution of some animals, but as a whole I cannot believe in what scientists say that human beings came from apes or apelike creatures.

I do have a theory that the apelike creatures with human features that have been found could be the people Quran mentions as those who were transformed into monkeys and swine for their disbelief when truth had been revealed to them.

After reading both sides of the argument on atheism or religion I still hold firm to my beliefs in believing in a Higher Almighty Lord of all things that exists in the Universe and beyond.:)

You don't have Pentacosts where you are? They are strict christians like yourself.
More here for ya: Pentecostalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentecostalism)


First, do not infer I am of a certain "religious" belief if you do not know me and second have you found that in the Bible yet?:)

"Not wear that which pertaineth to a man" (Deuteronomy 22:5) and "adorn [yourself] in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety" (1 Timothy 2:8-10). Men and women alike are discouraged from wearing jewelry, scripturally "gold, or pearls, or costly array" (1 Timothy 2:8-10).

More here: United Pentecostal church (http://www.inplainsite.org/html/united_pentecostal_church.html#ss)

So...Incest is okay, then, right? Since Lot lay down with his daughters and all that jazz.

And so is making sure a guy gets killed because you covet his wife, right? Didn't David arrange Uriah's death so he could hook up with Bathsheba?

Let's not even TALK about the great Jezebel---makeup makes you a whore, did you know that?

And bigamy--wouldn't that be okay then too?

The Golden Rule is great. The rest of it (what's left after political moves that removed parts of it so that they could take power away from others and give it to themselves) is pure sophistry.

What I'm trying to say is that there are some really great ideas in the Bible---but there are also some really horrible ones. Women shouldn't be subjugated because the Bible says so. Blacks shouldn't be slaves because Ham or Shem or whoever looked at a drunk Noah and laughed his rear end off. Gays shouldn't be ostricized because of the sins of 2 ancient cities that don't even exist anymore.

The only line in the Bible I truly love, and the line which is MOST ignored is this: Judgement is mine, saith the Lord.

Incest is okay, then, right? No

And bigamy--wouldn't that be okay then too? No

To understand the Bible you have to 1) take the verses and stories in context of the times and traditions 2) realize that all of your references are from the Old Testament and are very legalistic and are correct that don't apply 3) when Jesus came and died for our sins; His death literally ripped the curtain of the Old Covenant and created a New Covenant that is the New Testament 4) by understanding the Bible thoroughly one would understand that we are no longer bound by the laws of the Old Testament because of Christ's death as the ultimate sacrifice for all people

There are mountains and mountains of laws and commandments in the Old Testament but the New Testament clearly states: Matthew 22

34Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35One of them, an expert in the law(emphasis added), tested him with this question:
36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[c] [B]40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."(emphasis added)

Mountain Man, we all take the bible in our own way, and understand it in our own way. You will never be able to tell me how to take what it says, because frankly, unless you are the man or woman writing that sentence, then you just don't know. BUT you can assume...

You see you can quote the Bilble and look at these words and say the Bible is telling you that you are forbidden to do this and forbidden to do that, when in reality you are not forbidden to do them. I think many read the words as they appear without giving them proper consideration or meditating upon the actual meaning of them.

The Bible, in most ways, tells you how to live a happy life, one that will bring you great happiness. Parts of the Bible mention that if you gave everything you own away you would build your treasure in heaven and be quite content with what you have. Think about it deeper, the fact thatyou wear no jewellery means you are not concerned with appearance, the fact you have no money means you can be content with what you do have and not get caught up with greed and false pride (COnrad Black as an example). The Bible offers you a way of life that in this day and age seems outdated, but it really isn't, I wager that if you did follow the Bible tooth by tooth than you would not sin as much, not be concerned about trivial things and so on.

Society has made people the way they are because people buy into it, teens and youth look to Hollywood for answers, the Bible gives you something different, a different way, a better way in my opinion. As for what is forbidden and such, don't get caught up in that so much, if you are good God will forgive, not strike you down with a bolt of lightening. There is always a deeper meaning.

mountain Man, we all take the bible in our own way, and understand it in our own way. You will never be able to tell me how to take what it says, because frankly, unless you are the man or woman writing that sentence, then you just don't know. BUT you can assume.....


I wasn't telling you how to take the Bible I was setting up an example from the Bible so you could see the point I was making... If you choose to believe the way I or other Christians do is your choice you can take it or leave it.

I wasn't telling you how to take the Bible I was setting up an example from the Bible so you could see the point I was making...If you choose to believe the way I or other Christians do is your choice you can take it or leave it.
Ok, thanks!

You see you can quote the Bilble and look at these words and say the Bible is telling you that you are forbidden to do this and forbidden to do that, when in reality you are not forbidden to do them. I think many read the words as they appear without giving them proper consideration or meditating upon the actual meaning of them.

The Bible, in most ways, tells you how to live a happy life, one that will bring you great happiness. Parts of the Bible mention that if you gave everything you own away you would build your treasure in heaven and be quite content with what you have. Think about it deeper, the fact thatyou wear no jewelery means you are not concerned with appearance, the fact you have no money means you can be content with what you do have and not get caught up with greed and false pride (COnrad Black as an example). The Bible offers you a way of life that in this day and age seems outdated, but it really isn't, i wager that if you did follow the Bible tooth by tooth than you would not sin as much, not be concerned about trivial things and so on.

Society has made people the way they are because people buy into it, teens and youth look to Hollywood for answers, the Bible gives you something different, a different way, a better way in my opinion. As for what is forbidden and such, don't get caught up in that so much, if you are good God will forgive, not strike you down with a bolt of lightening. There is always a deeper meaning.

NeedKarma: I can't say it better than that! Thanks BMI

NeedKarma: I can't say it better than that! Thanks BMII know! I especially loved this part:

the Bible is telling you that you are forbidden to do this and forbidden to do that, when in reality you are not forbidden to do them

My pleasure:)

Ok; I don't understand... how can you say this:


I mean if someone followed the Bible to an exact T or even close you all would think he/she was a wonderful person no?

And then mountainman (who agrees with you it seems) says this:


To understand the Bible you have to 1) take the verses and stories in context of the times and traditions 2) realize that all of your references are from the Old Testament and are very legalistic and are correct that don't apply 3) when Jesus came and died for our sins; His death literally ripped the curtain of the Old Covenant and created a New Covenant that is the New Testament 4) by understanding the Bible thoroughly one would understand that we are no longer bound by the laws of the Old Testament because of Christ's death as the ultimate sacrifice for all people

And then BMI says this:


You see you can quote the Bilble and look at these words and say the Bible is telling you that you are forbidden to do this and forbidden to do that, when in reality you are not forbidden to do them. I think many read the words as they appear without giving them proper consideration or meditating upon the actual meaning of them.

So which is it? Do you take the literal translation of the bible ("follow it to a T"), or do you apply "stories in context of the times and traditions", or do you see that the bible tells you you are "forbidden to do this and forbidden to do that, when in reality you are not forbidden to do them"? And if you "follow it to a T" how is is that there is room for interpretation? Hmmm... seems someone isn't making sense...

So which is it? Do you take the literal translation of the bible ("follow it to a T"), or do you apply "stories in context of the times and traditions", or do you see that the bible tells you you are "forbidden to do this and forbidden to do that, when in reality you are not forbidden to do them"? And if you "follow it to a T" how is is that there is room for interpretation? Hmmm.... seems someone isn't making sense.....

I see how the Bible can be very confusing and certain verses are indeed very confusing but I believe you have to read things within the context and then apply while also taking into account that the Old Testament (laws) and New Testament (grace) are completely different.

You can't take everything in the Bible and directly apply it to now or we would all be sacrificing goats! Not fun.

The confusion lies in the phrase "follow it to a T", not necessarily meaning a literal interpretation you see. It's in relation to my deeper meaning post, follow what it tells you to a T, NO SHORTCUTS. Example, adultery is a sin, as is pride, so no matter what you try as best you can to not fall victim to sin, that's what I mean by following it to a T. Never compromise with sin is what I am trying to say.

My relationship with the Creator is personal and nothing comes between me and HIM, that is my choice. The good part of having a choice is its yours and it doesn't matter who likes it or who doesn't. I am neither christian, jew, or muslim, or fall into any category, but love and tolerate all those who make their own choice, for whatever their reasons. Cool with me. That's the beauty of choice, its yours to make.

The confusion lies in the phrase "follow it to a T", not necessarily meaning a literal interpretation you see. It's in relation to my deeper meaning post, follow what it tells you to a T, NO SHORTCUTS. Example, adultery is a sin, as is pride, so no matter what you try as best you can to not fall victim to sin, thats what i mean by following it to a T. Never comprimise with sin is what i am trying to say.

So what you say and what you mean are two totally different things. Got it.

And you of course realize an atheist is capable of living a life without engaging in adultery, pride, sloth, gluttony, envy, pride, homosexual acts, murder, theft etc etc. Just about the only "sin" we can't avoid is that pesky one about "I am your only god" or whatever.

To Jillian,

It's almost as if you purposly try to not understand what I'm saying and then post something to start a debate over it. What I mean and what I say are the same thing, you not understanding it is something totally different, GOT IT!

Jill, I believe he's saying that he follows what he thinks it means exactly (to a T), but he's happy to interpret what it says in any way he wants to find out what he thinks it means. (assuming you are a he, sorry)

Alrighty, I get your first part about what I believe to a T and you are bang on, the second point I have no clue what your talking about or whatyou mean by that.

See, even I am capable of misunderstanding, although I'm not rude about it.

You don't follow the bible literally, but you interpret it and follow that interpretation to a T, right?