Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why the Religious Debate is Boring

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 06:30 PM
link   
I have given this a lot of thought over the past few months. There are so many threads here for or against God. Many of these threads have valid proof behind them, and the people who post them really believe that they have the ultimate truth. But can that ever be said for sure?

There are so many websites on the Internet that claim they have the absolute proof God exists. ( Google search) As much as my scientific mind wants to really believe that there is someone who can make this world better with one magical "poof", logically, I come up with a reason why this can't be so. Faith is the major debate. The argument is based off of the fact the God cannot be proven, but since so many reasons point to the fact that he can exist, they lobby faith as the reason why they still believe. Do they really want to take their chances and not believe, and perhaps condemn themselves to Hell? What if there is a Heaven?

On the flip side, there are many reasons why God cannot be. ( Google search ) The most logical of minds can scientifically piece together a reason for every occurance, from evolution to gravity to air. It all comes down to molecules...components. And yet the argument remains how the molecules can arrange themselves in such a complex manner. Scientists will come back with logical explanations that go far beyond my realm of knowledge. But the ultimate question remains...how was the very first creation, be it the "Big Bang" or any other method...come to pass? Someone had to have started it, right?

When it really comes down to it, what are we trying to accomplish? Do we need to find out the absolute truth to everything? What happens when we do find out if God is real or not? Let's play that out...

If God exists....the scientific world we be transformed. No longer are concrete algorithms, molecular structures and laws of physics. Why should there be? Something way beyond our realm can control entire universes. Faith is a basis of knowledge. Churches would flourish. The financial impact would be amazing. My goodness...can you imagine?

If God doesn't exist...those who held faith this entire time would be considered more knowledgable.Would the faithless convert? That would also mean a rigid structure for everything. On an atomic level, everything would have meaning. The faith of the entire world would collapse. Would that mean more wars and wanton destruction?

It goes on and on and back and forth for me. I guess that why I have to carry the label "agnostic". I simply can't believe that an Ultimate Creator started this mess, and then left us to hash it out on our own. Can you change my mind? No. Can you debate valid and irrefutable point for either side for me? No.

So why do we? Are there peole out there who believe that with one more post, they can convert a couple more people into believing or not? If I am so gung ho and hard core with my belief, why do people try to change my mind? Are there people here who have had their minds or belief change simply because of a well worded post?




posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 09:33 PM
link   
Excellent, you're one step closer to achieving enlightenment.

Only once you question everything to find the non-existant truths to the universe should your curiosity be satisfied.

You will not know if God exists or not until you die - and I have a feeling that you won't find out then either. Chances are that the after-life is much like this life - full of questions. I would not have it any other way.

The worst thing a person can do is to simply accept things. A friend of mine asked me recently "I want to teach my son to question everything, but I don't want to impose my beliefs on him like religion does - how can I get around this?", where I answered "Then teach him to question everything. If you are successful, he will eventually question the validity of this philosophy as well."



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 09:47 PM
link   
There is no proof for or against God's existence. In this nation, you can choose to believe or not. There are perhaps innumerable reasons to believe in God, but the best one is to enjoy a personal mutual relationship. In my opinion, all other reasons are without merit.



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yarium
You will not know if God exists or not until you die - and I have a feeling that you won't find out then either. Chances are that the after-life is much like this life - full of questions. I would not have it any other way.


That's the best explaination of the afterlife I have ever heard. And also one that I have never heard before. Applause to you for giving me something new to consider.


Originally by GradyPhilpott
There are perhaps innumerable reasons to believe in God, but the best one is to enjoy a personal mutual relationship.


But how can this be personally fulfulling? i would feel as if it is one sided. I can talk to Him all I want, but once I want some feedback...well, where would I go from there?

And eventually, someday, there will be proof one way or another for God's existance.



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 02:13 PM
link   


Are there peole out there who believe that with one more post, they can convert a couple more people into believing or not? If I am so gung ho and hard core with my belief, why do people try to change my mind? Are there people here who have had their minds or belief change simply because of a well worded post?


Can a post change someone's mind? Who knows? It all depends on where that person who is reading that post is on their personal journey-can a post change YOUR mind...well maybe not immeditely but who knows the ramifications 10 years from now if one day you are presented with a truth in a post that lays dormant for years...and then takes root in understanding...

Why do people continue to *debate* "To God or not to God" LOL-well primarily it's not that the believers want to convert you-or anyone- but primarily just because of accountability.

To believe is to have accountability for those beliefs...or at least it should

...and that includes, answering questions concerning God, or one's faith and taking a stand, not to defend, or to argue, mind you- but to just declare their faith, explain their beliefs and mindset

...if they debate for other purposes, to me, that is self-serving egocentric folly

As for why do those who oppose belief in God post in such debates-I'd say somewhat of the same-they are merely declaring their faith-because to not believe in God takes reasonable amount of exercised faith and to declare it or argue helps them feel their belief grow stronger.

It is not out of accountability for them-as their faith is usually chosen to be freed from any such accountability

... but because no confimration can come from a higher source of the truth for them in their belief system that there is no source of higher truth...then they must seek other ways to find "confirmation"...so they seek it intellectually since they lack spirituality and lack spiritually.

However, "God works in mysterious ways" ...not to be trite, but it's ture, so who is to say one bit of truth-one line of truth in a post- can't immediately ring true, OR stay dormant in someone and come to frution of understanding later?

So, as for what good do such debates do.... you never know! What you read on a subject now, may ring true later...convert you now, immediately-of course not...but ring true? Maybe....and 10 years down the line...who knows?

people from both sides need to keep prospective and not try to change anyone's mind-but seek to develope their own

[edit on 16-12-2005 by think2much]



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 02:26 PM
link   


If God exists....the scientific world we be transformed. No longer are concrete algorithms, molecular structures and laws of physics. Why should there be? Something way beyond our realm can control entire universes. Faith is a basis of knowledge. Churches would flourish. The financial impact would be amazing. My goodness...can you imagine?


Not trying to change your mind, so don't accuse me of that-LOL-however I want to point out that you of course are assuming here that the existance of God would mean he would then control everything and we'd have no free will.

With this perception of God, you are limiting greatly what God can do, supposing what He can't ,and propossing what you think He should...

The God I believe in gives us free will and accountability. He did not "cause this mess" but does allow it of part of a plan that was put into action with certain universal truths governing the laws by which it will continue until the purpose of it's establishment has come to fruition.

The God I believe in is not just a God of Earth , but a God of the universe, and multiverses. In your search for truth, try to enlarge your perspective of understanding what a God can be...and not limiting him by what you think he would or should do on Earth



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by think2much

Not trying to change your mind, so don't accuse me of that-LOL-however I want to point out that you of course are assuming here that the existance of God would mean he would then control everything and we'd have no free will.

With this perception of God, you are limiting greatly what God can do, supposing what He can't ,and propossing what you think He should...

The God I believe in gives us free will and accountability. He did not "cause this mess" but does allow it of part of a plan that was put into action with certain universal truths governing the laws by which it will continue until the purpose of it's establishment has come to fruition.

The God I believe in is not just a God of Earth , but a God of the universe, and multiverses. In your search for truth, try to enlarge your perspective of understanding what a God can be...and not limiting him by what you think he would or should do on Earth



Actually, what I meant by saying

....the scientific world we be transformed. No longer are concrete algorithms, molecular structures and laws of physics. Why should there be? Something way beyond our realm can control entire universes.

was that we could mostly throw all scientific reasoning away. I mean, if God is proven to exist, then who is to say there are reasons for things that are completely opposite to what scientists have "proven"?

I didn't mean to imply that God would take control of all of us, but for the devout....wouldn't they hang onto every word and gesture? Wouldn't he control them, per se?


Originally by think2much
but because no confimration can come from a higher source of the truth for them in their belief system that there is no source of higher truth...then they must seek other ways to find "confirmation"...so they seek it intellectually since they lack spirituality


I don't agree with that. i know I don't lack spirituality. My spirit lies with the love of my children, and the love of my career. My spirit to me is what makes me alive...what enables me to go on another day...to truly live. I don't think I need a God to do that.

Otherwise, you had some good points. I am trying to develop my own mind. Who know what will stem from that?


[edit on 16-12-2005 by Rouschkateer]



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 11:19 PM
link   


I didn't mean to imply that God would take control of all of us, but for the devout....wouldn't they hang onto every word and gesture? Wouldn't he control them, per se?


Well, only if you consider by self-control, the devout would choose to obey or "hang onto every word or gesture" and thus be controlled...but still it is an indivdual choice and EXERCISE...self control and obedience is not easy, nor imposed by God


quote: Originally by think2much
but because no confimration can come from a higher source of the truth for them in their belief system that there is no source of higher truth...then they must seek other ways to find "confirmation"...so they seek it intellectually since they lack spirituality

I don't agree with that. i know I don't lack spirituality. My spirit lies with the love of my children, and the love of my career. My spirit to me is what makes me alive...what enables me to go on another day...to truly live. I don't think I need a God to do that.


I understand you do have a spirituality of your own. I misspoke-my appologies.

NOw, IMHO, you need to tap into that very spirituality you speak of, when you seek knowledge and wisdom about the possibility of God, and not reply upon your intellect entirely... and internet sources and books and peoples opinons, and religions etc...you know?


Otherwise, you had some good points. I am trying to develop my own mind. Who know what will stem from that?


Thank you. You you have valid and understandble points as well.

Now, never stop searching, and when you've asked the world enough questions...go directly to the source...pray to God...even with no intellectual faith, exercise a minute faith through that spirituality you are aware that exists withhin you, and if you are humble and really ready for the answers, and to be accountable to them, they will come I assure you.



[edit on 16-12-2005 by think2much]



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 01:09 AM
link   
Those who "debate" the possibility of the existence of god(s) do so because they have a personal stake in the issue. Atheists and theists are more alike than they are different-- both have chosen an answer to a question for which there is no evidence to support any answer and have defined themselves, at least in part, by the answer they've chosen. If their self-image is to be stable, they must convince themselves of the validity of the answer they've assumed.

Many, on both sides of the issue, simply rely on faith. They "know" they're right, and leave it at that. But there are some who can't just let it go-- for whatever reason, they must continue to try to convince themselves that they're right. The most common ways to do this are to proselytize and to attack opposing beliefs. They appear to believe that if they can get others to believe as they do, or if they can successfully discredit opposing beliefs, it will lend credence to their own beliefs.

Agnostics don't have to go through any of this. Agnosticism is the only viewpoint on the issue that's demonstrably and wholly true. Agnostics KNOW that they don't know if there is/are god(s). They're wholly and completely secure in their absolute certainty that they truly don't know. They never have even a moment's doubt about the complete lack of empirical evidence to support either view, and thus have no need to either attempt to convert others to their view or to discredit the views held by those others. No other view can even begin to pose any threat to the absolute certainty of agnosticism.



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 06:26 AM
link   
why think too much about a afterlife, or death for that matter. We are alive now and thats all that realy counts. im not sure what for but it does. belive what you want to about death but dont wast time preparing for it.

[edit on 17-12-2005 by funny_pom]



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 07:45 AM
link   


*snip*... and have defined themselves, at least in part, by the answer they've chosen. If their self-image is to be stable, they must convince themselves of the validity of the answer they've assumed.


Ok...I'd say I'd be entirely inclined to agree...however, I don't see how this excludes agnostics.

Just because one chooses to shrug and say "Well, I just don't know. I just can't say. I just don't find proof either way, so I'll just stay on the fence as my official stand" doesn't it still equally make them defined by their chosen "answer" of believing not either way?

agnosticism *is* within itself still a defining belief...

it's a belief not for or against a belief in God.

Thus they are defined by, and exercise a faith in, thier belief nonetheless.

So for them as well, for agnostics to be stable, they must conitinue to convince themselves of the validity of their answer as well...by continually caliming they see absolutely no proof either way.... no matter what new or interesting or valid points may be presented directly to them, or they may accidentally come accross in life or in reasearching the subject to continue to validate their belief...I see many agnostics constinually trying to convince themselves "of the validity of the answer they've assumed."



They never have even a moment's doubt about the complete lack of empirical evidence to support either view, and thus have no need to either attempt to convert others to their view or to discredit the views held by those others. No other view can even begin to pose any threat to the absolute certainty of agnosticism.


Well, with their resources only containing a lack of empiracal evidence on either side, they don't really have a foot to stand on to convert anyone, or more importanly discredit the views of others.

...and re: Absolute certainty ... I've never personally met an agnostic who will claim absolute certainty of their belief...other than to say they just "cannot believe for or against the existance of God" by their experince, research, and evidence presented by man...

many were merely brought up-raised agnostic by agnostic parents...this is their belief system and faith based "religion" of sorts

I say faith based, because they can't have exhausted all means to prove or disprove the existance of God...therefore, they must take it on faith that there is not enough proof either way and thus to be on the fence is the only logical, rational, and true, absolute certain belief they must have faith in.

but usually they do find themselves exploring religious topics, discussions anyway and continuing to search...either for or against proof of God...even if only to strengthen their own belief there isn't enough proof either way, they still search in their self proclaimed uncertaininty of the validity of beliefs for or aganist the existance of God



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 07:52 AM
link   


why think too much about a afterlife, or death for that matter. We are alive now and thats all that realy counts. im not sure what for but it does. belive what you want to about death but dont wast time preparing for it.


That is so existentially deep, I'm not sure if I understand exactly what you are saying, so let me TRY to paraphrase it...are you saying something along the lines of...Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die...


I'm just joshin' with ya


The thing I think you misunderstand though, is to believe in God, or not too...has just as much...no, maybe even MORE, impact (or should) on how one LIVES now...not just about death.

Belieivng in God isn't preparing for death-it's preparing for life-eternal life...we are just practicing now...baby steps...



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by think2much

agnosticism *is* within itself still a defining belief...


No it's not-- that's my point. Agnosticism isn't a "belief," it's a statement of fact. Or more accurately, and more pointedly, it's an admission of fact. Agnostics are not the only ones who don't really know if there is/are god(s), EVERYBODY doesn't really know. Agnostics simply admit it.



Thus they are defined by, and exercise a faith in, thier belief nonetheless.


Agnostics are certainly defined, at least in part, by their agnosticism, but again, it is neither a belief nor faith. It's a simple admission of an existing state of affairs.



So for them as well, for agnostics to be stable, they must conitinue to convince themselves of the validity of their answer as well...by continually caliming they see absolutely no proof either way.... no matter what new or interesting or valid points may be presented directly to them, or they may accidentally come accross in life or in reasearching the subject to continue to validate their belief...I see many agnostics constinually trying to convince themselves "of the validity of the answer they've assumed."


Pshaw. Agnostics don't have to try to convince themselves of anything-- that's the entire point. The "support" for agnosticism is all around us all the time. And agnostics are in the best position to really appreciate any evidence that would tend to support either atheism or theism since they don't have a stake in either belief. Believers on either side are primed to accept even weak or spurious evidence that tends to support their preconceptions and to deny strong evidence that tends to undercut them. Agnostics are only interested in evidence-- real evidence-- regardless of which way it points.



Well, with their resources only containing a lack of empiracal evidence on either side, they (agnostics) don't really have a foot to stand on to convert anyone, or more importanly discredit the views of others.


Exactly. However, EVERYONE operates under the exact same lack of empirical evidence, but that certainly doesn't stop atheists and theists from dedicating entirely too much time and energy to attempting to convert others and to discredit competing beliefs.



...and re: Absolute certainty ... I've never personally met an agnostic who will claim absolute certainty of their belief...


You might not have previously met another agnostic who would phrase it in just that way, but agnostics do enjoy that certainty. And again, it's not certainty in a "belief," it's certainty in a demonstrable fact. If there was real evidence to be had either way, someone among the believers would've presented it by now. They have not, so it's certain that there is not any such evidence to present, at least at this point in time. Nobody can say what tomorrow might bring, but with no personal stake in the issue, agnostics are ready to simply accept any empirical evidence that anyone might be able to present.



I say faith based, because they (agnostics) can't have exhausted all means to prove or disprove the existance of God...


They don't need to-- atheists and theists devote enormous amounts of time and energy to attempting to do just that-- all agnostics need to do is watch. If there were any evidence to be had either way, then those on the side that was supported by such evidence would've long since trumpeted it to the world.



...but usually they do find themselves exploring religious topics, discussions anyway and continuing to search...


Absolutely.



...even if only to strengthen their own belief there isn't enough proof either way


No. They search because they want to know the truth. They're agnostic because the truth has not yet been found and they feel no need to assume an answer either way. They simply accept the fact that it has not yet been found, and are ready if and when it is.

The simple truth is that we are all, ultimately, agnostic-- that is, without knowledge. However, only some of us admit it.



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 01:21 PM
link   


The simple truth is that we are all, ultimately, agnostic-- that is, without knowledge. However, only some of us admit it.


Amen! hehehe


I was copy everything you wrote to say basically the very same thing in each scenereo really, as everything you say seems to make MY point for me, but it's gets tiresome to keep going back and forth point by pint...

but this sums up our point even if we agree to disagree it is not on the facts but a misinterpretation of how we view the same facts.

It seems to be a matter of semantics-and though you would disagree, I assure you for ME it is.

I can, do and will absolutely agree that there is NO hard PROOF for or against the existance of God...in that-I AM AGNOSTIC!

Yes, I am agnostic by definition, but it is not my self-professed belief system, so it doesn't define me

I choose to take a leap of faith to believe one particular way anyway-as does everyone it seems to me-faith based in faith or faith based in fact...you may say there is no such thing as "faith based in fact...if there is fact, in cancels the need for faith" but what I am saying is the facts of agnosticism lend to a faith in it as a system of belief to discount the validity of other systems of belief to me, this is just how I see it! And from my personal relationships in life with those who claim to be agnostic-defined by that, that randg true for them.

I wrote more, but I now edit before posting because you seem intelligent and respectful and I like that and don't want to seem like I'm trying to push my religious bias on you, nor criticize your beliefs


peace



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by think2much

I choose to take a leap of faith to believe one particular way anyway...


And, as you well know, there's nothing at all wrong with that. The problem, as expressed in the opening post of this thread, is those who aren't content to simply believe as they choose, but who try to impose their beliefs on others or to discredit the beliefs of others. The fact that you aren't one of those people is to your credit.


...you may say there is no such thing as "faith based in fact...if there is fact, in cancels the need for faith"


Umm... yeah. That's exactly what I'd say.




...you seem intelligent and respectful and I like that and don't want to seem like I'm trying to push my religious bias on you, nor criticize your beliefs


And I must say the same of you.

I've chosen to define myself as agnostic. I feel comfortable with that. You obviously feel comfortable with the way in which you've chosen to define yourself as well. That comfort is really the point of all of this. Part of my initial point was that it's the people who are NOT truly comfortable with their chosen beliefs that feel the need to impose them on others or to attack the beliefs of others. Those who are comfortable in their beliefs, regardless of what those beliefs might be, generally don't feel that need. They are worthy of respect, again regardless of what their beliefs might be.

Respectfully,
BLT



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by think2much
They search because they want to know the truth. They're agnostic because the truth has not yet been found and they feel no need to assume an answer either way. They simply accept the fact that it has not yet been found, and are ready if and when it is.


I do want to know the truth. It is something that while it doesn't readily "consume" me, as i have work and kids to raise...it does seem to be a part of my life that is missing. One way or another. My husband believes in God, and wants me to accept God as well. But I tried sitting in chruch listening to the preacher tell me I am a sinner, and so are my children...and that just really offends me. I believe that humans have a moral creed they have to live by, but why do I have to accept that God is the person who wrote it for me? I do not kill, I do not steal, etc. This is why humans are more evolved than animals. We have accepted the fact that others in our species deserve respect.

As for my children being born sinners, and that they shall not be absolved unless I baptise them...phooey. Children are the most innocent of creatures.

So many questions....so few answers. Maybe I just haven't found the "right" religion. Who is to say I should adopt Christian beliefs?

EDIT: formatting


[edit on 18-12-2005 by Rouschkateer]



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 12:37 PM
link   


As for my children being born sinners, and that they shall not be absolved unless I baptise them...phooey. Children are the most innocent of creatures.


Gosh, I'd sure be inclined to agree on that point!

You mentioned a point why does believing in God mean Christian beliefs anyway...and I just want to point out that you having to baptize your children-or that they are born as sinners etc...aren't accepted Christian beliefs across the Christian board. Many Christian denominations agree children are innocent.




I believe that humans have a moral creed they have to live by, but why do I have to accept that God is the person who wrote it for me? I do not kill, I do not steal, etc. This is why humans are more evolved than animals. We have accepted the fact that others in our species deserve respect.


I am happy for you that you do not kill or steal.
Of course being a human, evolved beyond being an animal, does not distinguish you as a moral species as a whole though does it?...look at all who do kill and steal... being human doesn't mean the moral code by which you choose to live by is ingrained in us.

As for who says God should be the author of our moral creed...well, who better? If he created us and the universe that governs us, wouldn't he knows the laws better then we...and shouldn't we then depend on Him to keep us educated and keep us free from consequence?

Why shouldn't he dictate our morals? Why should we'd have to listen to such....well, there are universal laws which include consequence by which we are bound, ( I also believe there are such laws by which God is bound too...but I wont * go there * here and now-LOL) I just want to address that point that God tells us how to live by giving laws and stating what is and is not "sin"...this is both for our protection and for accountability more than anything else.

Yes, as humans one would hope we have evolved to a species that has morals that would differientiate us from animals, but fact is, animals are not in need of morals. It is not a sin for example for an animal to kill another...for food, for survival, for territory, for ...being in a bad mood and eating their young-LOL-or for wanting to put their mate back in heat...whatever...a whole different world and set of rules...

We have higher accountability because we have higher purpose in the eternal perspective of *life*

Anyway, without law, there is no accountability either, and we have to have accountability ourselves, or there is no room or avenue for progress-no truth, wisdom, knowledge, or understanding can or will be given to those that are not willing , ready, or able to accept the accountability for such...and so Gods laws=accepting accountability.

Therefor God has two reasons for giving us law and dictating our morals. 1)because He knows of the consequences of universal law for us and himself and wishes to protect us from those justices (because mercy cannot rob justice-even He tries to explain that clearly...therefor God's son's sacrifice, nor God's love or anything else will save us from universal consequences in this life or the next...be forgiven-yes, be exempt for consequence? hell no)

This way He hopefully saves us from making mistakes that have consequences by the laws of universal justice-or Karma- as some may even think of it-but giving us specific instructions on what to do and not to do.

Plus 2) He gives us accountability through his own laws so that he may expound knowledge to us and extol praise and bestow blessings etc.

What I think personally you feel replused by, is not god..but some man standing in front of a crowd "preaching" AT you...dictating to you as if he himself has some higher authority to you-when you can clearly feel in your bones he does not. This spiritual intuition is a great guide in your search...always consider the source of what you are being told...what does your spiritual intuition tell you.

Most religeons and denominations ALL have bits of truth in them, but the search is to put the bits together and find the full truth-and likely it's not going to come from someone preaching at you. LOL

Seek to be educted in God, by God not man.

Though you will come across men-and women-who can help you on that quest...and perhaps even those in authority in churches-but a preacher standing in front of a crowd has no other authority than those who are in his crowd...he just (maybe) has more formal religious bias...I um mean education.


Hang in there and keep searching



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 12:54 AM
link   
Maybe that is the reason why I get so riled up at chruch...it's that "holier than thou" feeling (haha).

I know I am not perfect, and another aspect of formal religion is the fact that I am supposed to be as perfect as possible, and yet ask God/Jesus/St. Peter for forgiveness. Well, what's the point of living by a moral creed when there is always the chance of forgiveness anyway?



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 12:59 AM
link   
Exactly. Can't I just believe in God and Jesus and whatever has been said according to how I see it? Is that not we shoud be doing? I have totally turned off organized religion now - it's too constricting to accept my values and beliefs. I'm glad I'm seeing more people move towards a more personal understanding of god (however they interpret it), life, death, after-life, moral codes, and belief structures. That's the way to go.



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 05:06 PM
link   
Interesting post. I would like to pick up on some valid points you made, that, given your generalisation and non-emphasis of them, leads me to believe you didn't consider them to be valid points at all:



Originally posted by Rouschkateer
As much as my scientific mind wants to really believe that there is someone who can make this world better with one magical "poof", logically, I come up with a reason why this can't be so.


So, you consider God to be creator of the Earth (and the Universe?), and this creation was as simple as a magical 'poof', the click of fingers?

I wonder where did this assumption come from? Firstly that God created the world, and secondly that it was an effortless whim?



Originally posted by Rouschkateer
Faith is the major debate. The argument is based off of the fact the God cannot be proven, but since so many reasons point to the fact that he can exist, they lobby faith as the reason why they still believe. Do they really want to take their chances and not believe, and perhaps condemn themselves to Hell? What if there is a Heaven?


Define this Heaven and Hell........... I assume you reference the popular Western cliches of such metaphysical places based on Christian art and literature?



Originally posted by RouschkateerIf God exists....the scientific world we be transformed. No longer are concrete algorithms, molecular structures and laws of physics. Why should there be? Something way beyond our realm can control entire universes. Faith is a basis of knowledge. Churches would flourish.


Would the church flourish? You assume that if proof of God's existence was realised, that it would confirm to Christian teachings.




Originally posted by RouschkateerIf God doesn't exist...those who held faith this entire time would be considered more knowledgable.


Would they? Again, you assume that proof of God equates to confirmation of a particular religious teaching.




Originally posted by RouschkateerI simply can't believe that an Ultimate Creator started this mess, and then left us to hash it out on our own.


This is tantamount to the question: "If there's a God, why do bad things happen to good people", which I like to think leads to more conclusions than just the usual two, which usually result in a testament of blind faith or blind rejection.

It's fair to ask that, (if the Christian model of an all-knowing, all-seeing God is to be used), then if he created us, and loves us, why does he let us suffer? Well firstly, there's no real reason to assume that this model of God is a correct one. So, let's wipe the slate clean about what God is, and ask the question again: "If there's a God, why do bad things happen to good people"

There are several conclusions, here's a few to ponder:

1) God gives us free will on Earth, and does not interfer (The usual Christian conclusion of the parental 'tough-love' God)
2) There is no God (the usual atheist conclusion)
3) The creator is not a benevolent one (The medieval idea of Earth as Hell, created by the Devil)
4) God is something quite different to all these ideas (Here's where you have to do a bit of thinking outside Western societies usual frames of reference for what God is)..........

Have a think about it, there's no right or wrong answer as such -- as much as it's been set up to be one -- This doesn't have to an either or question




Originally posted by Rouschkateer
Can you change my mind? No. Can you debate valid and irrefutable point for either side for me? No.

So why do we? Are there peole out there who believe that with one more post, they can convert a couple more people into believing or not? If I am so gung ho and hard core with my belief, why do people try to change my mind? Are there people here who have had their minds or belief change simply because of a well worded post?


It's your mind, only you can change it - If someone tries to change your mind, aren't they also trying to control it? To try to influence someone's thoughts and their ideas about the world they live in - it's attempting to bring people around to a way of thinking - agreeing to either a concept you believe in, or one that benefits you.

I don't particularly wish to control you, or your ideas, but it seems, from your post, your ideas have already been influenced, as have all our ideas and thoughts - by society, religion, politics and culture.

All I'm trying to point out is - Who says that this ideas about what God is, is an accurate one? Seems like you don't believe it's accurate, because you reject it - I reject it too. But that doesn't necessarily mean there's no God.

It just means the concept of God that has been sold to us, is one that is difficult to reconcile with the world we see - Am I being clear?

Before you reject the concept of God, question the concept of God - since there's no way of conclusively proving God is one thing or another - there's no reason to settle for one particular theology or belief system - all you have to consider is whether you think it's plausable that God exists, and if so, what it could encompass.



I don't find Religious debate boring in the slightest, there's so much to be learned and discussed and pondered - it's endless! Don't settle for what THEY tell you God is - have a look around at the different theories, the different ideas, think for yourself what God is before you reject it completely - when you reject something, you cease examination of it, when you cease examining, those who have control of it's influence and image are free to go about their business unfettered - that's a dangerous situation with an concept so large and important as 'what is life and why are we here'.






top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join