Originally posted by randomname
you can choose, out of your own free will to be right with God, or as atheists do, ignore that little hiccup to their plans, and believe they are capable of determining what is wrong or right.
If you can find books on it, game theory explains this without much requirement for religion.
The fact of the matter is, co-operating makes a species successful. Species who do not co-operate generally die or have other odd traits such as birthing many children at once. As a general rule, animals who produce off spring slowly co-operate.
There is no dolphin bible. There is no elephant bible. There is no monkey bible. Yet they share food and assist one another. Further amusing reading
Originally posted by NewAgeMan
Furthermore, the notion that we are not in relationship with and to the Source as the Absolute Godhead and Creator is also absurd.
I consider it absurd that the parent of an entire species created them then took a 100, 000 year odd break, and then returned very briefly to hand over a pile of cryptic passages explaining that the world is maybe 5000 years old and finally hand over morals in the form of a book to people who have no efficient form of passing on information other than word of mouth.
Not to mention that during the creation process it decided to put the same hole I use for breathing just above my stomach so I can choke and am not even going to go into what it did with my sex organs.
If such a being exists, it's either incompetent, useless at parenting, or we're not important at all to it. It could be having a titantic wrestling match with Djinn or Satan or whichever big bad actually exists but I doubt it.
Lets face it, if God was a human parent we would have an ATS thread discussing how their children were turning homosexual because of their bad upbringing.
Originally posted by OMsk3ptic
Science can only explain how, not why. Maybe there is no why, but I find that to be an even stranger conclusion than a creator.
It isn't just science vs ...
There are two schools of thought on that. The first one is that science should be finding more evidence than it is ie ... if the world is created there should be evidence for that and there isn't ergo ...
The other is actually pure philosophy which seems to be held onto like morals by religions. Philosophically speaking I think trying to understand a creation mechanism (or being) through logic like ... stuff exists, therefore something made the stuff and that something has to be intelligent ... it just seems so primitive!
The billions or empty planets and dead stars tell me that this creator is either beyond human understanding and couldn't be held to such logic in the first place, or it simply doesn't exist.
Edit: As a side note ... awesome notes by theists above me. I believe it would be logical to assume God inserted moral codes biologically rather than be so absent completely if we want to believe that morality has any religious connection at all other than religion writing it down.
edit on 15-11-2012 by Pinke because: Edit