Is there a God?

[Naptaq]

stockwiz said:

I believe in a supreme being, yes... I also believe that evolution and creation do not contridict one another, but go together in harmony perfectly.

My version of God is not a jealous, egotistical God that requires his creations to behave or else... he's all loving, and omnipresent.. everywhere, everything, a part of all of us, all the "time" ... kind of hard to explain..

the book series "conversations with God" by neale walsch combined with David Hawkins book "I" basially sum up my version of God.

There is a big difference between spirituality and religion in my book... religion divides, spirituality unites.

I believe we incarnate countless times and that our "soul" lives forever on a plane not detectable by physical normal means, vibrating at a higher frequency, similar to how none of us can "see" infared or ultraviolet light, much less radio waves... different vibrations.... thus I don't fear death, nor do I see this particular incarnation as any big deal, though it is an interesting "time" to be alive, the year 2005, on planet earth, with technology developing the way it is.

Before I was born my grandmother was hospitalized over an allergic reaction and nearly died.... she had a near death experience, where she was out of her body looking at her self sitting in the hospital table .. she was told it was not her time yet and was sent back into her body... she has never feared death since that day, and still smokes quite a bit at her old age... that wasn't the prime source of my beliefs but it is an interesting thing to have happened in our family.

Nice post

To me religions are just ways to know God or to know that there's something more (the major religions that is).

Reincarnation is a very interesting subject. Jesus never talked about previous lives because he came from Heaven, while Budhha had many lifetimes and remembered some of them.

A near-death experience is a very good thing to happen to you. Every time it happens the person then has no fear of death what so ever, like in Derrick's grandma's case. You almost die but you come away with a precious knowlege I never had one myself, but I'd imagine they're quite profound, awesome and change you for the better. Elisabeth_Kübler-Ross describes Near-death experiences in her book On Death and Dying.

[Stranger]

A message to atheists, from John Safran.

[Awake]

haha, i saw that on tv ages ago, loved watching his show.

still, hes wrong =)

[Awake]

i think agnosticism has more to do with knowledge, whereas theism/atheism are simply about belief. i don’t know if god exists, thus i don’t deny the possibility of his existence, but at the present time i see no reason to believe that he does.

i think belief in god is either a yes or no answer, even agnostics who (accurately) claim 'i don't know' are either atheists or theists in a sense.

ps. he’s wrong ;D

[dog]

awake said:

i think agnosticism has more to do with knowledge, whereas theism/atheism are simply about belief. i don’t know if god exists, thus i don’t deny the possibility of his existence, but at the present time i see no reason to believe that he does.

i think belief in god is either a yes or no answer, even agnostics who (accurately) claim 'i don't know' are either atheists or theists in a sense.

ps. he’s wrong ;D

Of course agnosticism has to do with knowledge. The word Gnostic is from the greek meaning "to know."

Likewise, thiesm is from the Greek meaning "to believe."

Put the "a" in front of these terms, and the meaning becomes negative in connotation.

You pinned it there, man! Very good!


I think one thing that our own modern science and philosophy has done is make the driving force to the universe much more mechanical in nature, making "God" more impersonal.

Maybe we're right, hell, i'm not sure either. But i'm thinking that science and religion have much more in common than previously believed.

[Awake]

heh, I knew the Greek meaning behind a/theism, but wasn't certain about agnosticism.

But i'm thinking that science and religion have much more in common than previously believed.

how so? i can't see science and religion ever being compatible, one simply observes the world and makes conclusions based on those observations, without bias or prejudice. the other has to find a way to make the same observations fit stories from an ancient book.

[Buzzz]

Raptor Jesus?

[dog]

awake said:

heh, I knew the Greek meaning behind a/theism, but wasn't certain about agnosticism.

But i'm thinking that science and religion have much more in common than previously believed.

how so? i can't see science and religion ever being compatible, one simply observes the world and makes conclusions based on those observations, without bias or prejudice. the other has to find a way to make the same observations fit stories from an ancient book.

Not necessarily. Some of the best Christian and Muslim scientist/philosophers were also very devout and faithful. I'm thinking of Al-rhazi and Thomas Acquinas here, among the most famous among their flocks when it came to explaining divine philosophies.

And besides, believing in some old book does not make you religious. You just become a literalist. The true nature of the universe and existance has yet to be understood, and neither science nor religion will be able to explain it all. However, we're getting better at it all the time.

[Tal]

dog said:

Not necessarily. Some of the best Christian and Muslim scientist/philosophers were also very devout and faithful. I'm thinking of Al-rhazi and Thomas Acquinas here, among the most famous among their flocks when it came to explaining divine philosophies.

And besides, believing in some old book does not make you religious. You just become a literalist.

If it's a religious book, surely it makes you religious.

Anyway, just because a scientist happens to have been born or conned into a religion, doesn't mean that religion has a bearing on his scientific work. Sure, most scientists will find no conflict between the two in their field of study, because they're not dealing with the 'big issues' that religion has tried (and failed) to explain.

However, there's no way you can say science and religion are compatible or have much in common (beyond the basic Human desire 'to understand'), when you've got a 65 million year old fossil in one hand and a bunch of scriptures declaring the world to be only 6,000 years old in the other.

I should say though, that any scientist who believes in a God should only treat that God as a possible theory, otherwise IMO they're breaking the principle rule of science.

[timid]

About near death experiences (NDE's) - That would indeed be cool to be able to be rid of my fears and ... change for the better!

[annaa]

Although I wouldn't label myself as a pagan/wiccan, I do have those beliefs.
If there is a god it's actually a goddess... however god is more likely to be found in nature.

[dog]

talisman said:

dog said:

Not necessarily. Some of the best Christian and Muslim scientist/philosophers were also very devout and faithful. I'm thinking of Al-rhazi and Thomas Acquinas here, among the most famous among their flocks when it came to explaining divine philosophies.

And besides, believing in some old book does not make you religious. You just become a literalist.

If it's a religious book, surely it makes you religious.

Anyway, just because a scientist happens to have been born or conned into a religion, doesn't mean that religion has a bearing on his scientific work. Sure, most scientists will find no conflict between the two in their field of study, because they're not dealing with the 'big issues' that religion has tried (and failed) to explain.

However, there's no way you can say science and religion are compatible or have much in common (beyond the basic Human desire 'to understand'), when you've got a 65 million year old fossil in one hand and a bunch of scriptures declaring the world to be only 6,000 years old in the other.

I should say though, that any scientist who believes in a God should only treat that God as a possible theory, otherwise IMO they're breaking the principle rule of science.

Tell me where in the bible it says the world is 6000 years old. (Hint: I'm trying to trick you into reading it, Tal. ;D )

And don't use the internet to do it.

Science is often wrong. First, the world becomes 30,000 years old. Then, it becomes 30 million years old when dinosaur fossils are discovered. Now, it's 5 billion years old. Come on scientists, make up your mind already! ;D

I reiterate my point; Religious beliefs, like previously accepted scientific theories, must be re-examined over time with the admission of new evidence.

Tell me, what do you know of the phlogiston theory? It's now discarded as fool hardy. But three hundred years ago, in the new age of science, the Phlogiston theory was accepted as true and universal and without fault.

Now, science knows it was wrong about the phlogiston theory.

Science also once denied that gorrillas and giant squid also did not exist, and could not exist. Science also says that helicopters cannot fly according to aerodynamics. Galvinism also has been proven faulty.

Guess who's wrong in each case? Science. And the scientists who purported these beliefs.

Like Science now, religion also must be put to the test. We must alter our beliefs and theories to fit ever changing and increasing stores of knowledge.

And if God is not some big old man in the sky with a beard looking down on us, so what? Becuase religious texts are often erroneous or inaccurate does not prove God does not exist. And it proves not that science is supreme and without error.

Religion and Science are far more related than previously thought in that both need to be re-examined.

[dog]

annaa said:

Although I wouldn't label myself as a pagan/wiccan, I do have those beliefs.
If there is a god it's actually a goddess... however god is more likely to be found in nature.

I too believe that God and the Deos of the universe are one and the same thing.

[Awake]

dog said:

Tell me where in the bible it says the world is 6000 years old. (Hint: I'm trying to trick you into reading it, Tal. ;D )

And don't use the internet to do it.

It's well known that young earth creationists derive their beliefs from a literal interpretation of the bible.

I don't have a bible with me, and if we can't use the internet, you can find the evidence yourself .

Science is often wrong. First, the world becomes 30,000 years old. Then, it becomes 30 million years old when dinosaur fossils are discovered. Now, it's 5 billion years old. Come on scientists, make up your mind already! ;D

I reiterate my point; Religious beliefs, like previously accepted scientific theories, must be re-examined over time with the admission of new evidence.

Tell me, what do you know of the phlogiston theory? It's now discarded as fool hardy. But three hundred years ago, in the new age of science, the Phlogiston theory was accepted as true and universal and without fault.

Now, science knows it was wrong about the phlogiston theory.

Science also once denied that gorrillas and giant squid also did not exist, and could not exist. Science also says that helicopters cannot fly according to aerodynamics. Galvinism also has been proven faulty.

Guess who's wrong in each case? Science. And the scientists who purported these beliefs.

That's the beauty and strength of science, it's self correcting. Religion is not, and has always been very reluctant to change. Scientists use the scientific method to make sure the results are as objective as we know how to make them, the work is then peer reviewed and scrutinised by other experts in the field.

How many times has a scientist corrected, updated, disproved, added to or rewritten a previous theory? How does this compare with the church? Look at the recently discovered Gospel of Judas, has the church revised anything? The only time religion adapts is when its survival is threatened.

Like Science now, religion also must be put to the test. We must alter our beliefs and theories to fit ever changing and increasing stores of knowledge.

And if God is not some big old man in the sky with a beard looking down on us, so what? Becuase religious texts are often erroneous or inaccurate does not prove God does not exist. And it proves not that science is supreme and without error.

Science always puts itself to the test. That’s why all the above theories are no longer accepted. Who disproved them, the pope or a scientist?

Divinely inspired texts cannot be wrong. If they are, your whole foundation disappears, what else do you have to base your faith on? The bible is supposedly the word of an omnipotent and omniscient god, how can it be wrong? What’s there to re-examine? Science is dynamic, religion is doomed to be static. It's good and well to say "religion should be re-examined, etc", but that simply isn’t the case.

Religion and Science are far more related than previously thought in that both need to be re-examined.

I'm curious, how do you define religion, and what do you think it's purpose is? How exactly are religion and science linked? What part does faith play? I think your interpretation is very different from the norm, which is why I'm finding a lot of what you say very strange .

My belief is that there is no proof for any sort of god (that I know of), all that exists are gaps in our knowledge, which theists point at with all the faith they can muster and yell "Goddidit". It doesn't disprove the possibility of a god, but it provides a rational reason for atheism.

[Tal]

dog said:

Tell me where in the bible it says the world is 6000 years old. (Hint: I'm trying to trick you into reading it, Tal. ;D )

And don't use the internet to do it.

Well, too bad, because I did, and it's not the Bible, but another piece of scripture by Archbishop James Ussher, which claims the Earth was created around 4,000BC.

dog said:

Science is often wrong. First, the world becomes 30,000 years old. Then, it becomes 30 million years old when dinosaur fossils are discovered. Now, it's 5 billion years old. Come on scientists, make up your mind already! ;D

Awake answered this as well as anyone could, so I won't say too much. The key difference between religion and science in response to your argument, is that whereas scientists don't believe these old, out-dated and often disproven theories, many, many religious groups still do!

Where religious ideas have been overcome by scientific ones, it's almost always a sign of religion and its followers being dragged along by scientific reason, not a cooperative effort to understand the world.

Usually when people do try and link religion and science, it's because they're seeking in some way or other to legimitise religion - to try and cover up the obvious necessary divide between reason and faith.