Do You Believe In God?

[vampire]

god is stardust

[Pandora]

I'm big into science, and organic matter. A god, omnipotent or not, makes no sense to me. We're animals in my opinion, this is our one incredibly lucky shot at living and when I die I go into the ground and that's the end of me. Death is a natural part of all organic matter, including mammals.

So I'm part of the no, and I never did crowd, which is quite small I realize. Works for me though, and I hope everyone else's beliefs work great for them too. One of my favorite things about the US. Freedom of religion, or lack thereof.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

I'm a bit surprised at the stats of that vote. Very different than what one would expect from a national survey. It could be interpreted various ways but its at least approximating something like a 55/45 % split between "yes" and "no" which, is definitely far off the national stats. The "no" votes are in an much smaller minority nationally.

I think its fairly well established that most "alternative" subcultures tend to have less mainstream religious adherents, but the gothy-ish subculture i thought believed in just different sorts of gods. At least according to this here, there are a LOT more atheists around here than i had expected.

[Steven]

I'd like to go back to that evolution of humans that hun Hee alluded to in the past.

can somebody share on this theory that humans are evolving all the time?

[Troy Spiral (13)]

I'd like to go back to that evolution of humans that hun Hee alluded to in the past.

can somebody share on this theory that humans are evolving all the time?

Biological evolution being as referred to here - changes, usually bad or neutral but occasionally good "mistakes" (that is, not exact copies) of the genes of the parents during reproduction. The bad traits tend to produce organisms (humans in this case) that are less likely to survive, while the good mutations lead to people that are more likely to survive and thus the evolution progresses eventually the changes build on one another as the "good" genes get passed on.

The humans that are more likely to survive tending to get more ass due to them being around longer and it builds on itself over time. Descendants of parents with the good "mistakes in genetic code reproduction", that are helpful for survival to take hold and thus spread more widely. Evolving, as a species to a more "well adapted" version for whatever environment we live in. Eventually evolving into a new sub species then a new species then a new genus... and so on.

Larger organisms tend to reproduce a lot slower than smaller ones and thus its harder to see in larger organisms. But insects and even smaller things like bacteria and viruses evolve very quickly and its often easy to see just in the course of one breeding "season." The common argument against this being that organisms might be adapting but they aren't changing into different "kinds" (word taken from the bible) Unfortunately its a false analogy and a misunderstanding of real evolution as it takes a LONG time (in human terms) for most organisms to evolve into a distinct species. But with small organisms this isn't the case and evolution is clearly at work virtually right in front of our eyes.

Many of your more scientific minded people these days (after 150 years of kicking and screaming) that are religious don't necessarily see this as an argument against god. This is known as "slow creation" and is accepted as gods way of creating the universe. (Rarely does this opinion come from reading the bible, it comes from scientific literacy)

But, there is still a vast majority of religious people people (there's lots of polls on such things) that think that mankind is less than 7000 years old, which is derived straight from the bible and this young-earth idea is incompatible with legitimate biological evolution.

I cant say even THIS is really an argument against god per-se, its more of an argument against the fundamentalist Christan god. But , for most people at least in the US, this is in direct opposition with the mainstream version of Christian or Christain-esque (new word? anyone? heh) cosmology. So Beer was invented about 3000+ years before man existed by this argument.

[Rev.Reverence]

I cant say even THIS is really an argument against god per-se, its more of an argument against the fundamentalist Christan god. But , for most people at least in the US, this is in direct opposition with the mainstream version of Christian or Christain-esque (new word? anyone? heh) cosmology. So Beer was invented about 3000+ years before man existed by this argument.

[Oh_My_Goth]

I AM TRULY A BELIEVER (of some sort)

[phee]

Re-Reading this thread.

I would put it like this:

I really don't know... But in all likelyhood there is no God. If there is a "God" then it is as likely as anything else that one can imagine, from Judeo Christian mythology to Greek mythology, to Cthulhu, to The Flying Spagetti monster... they all about have the same chance of being in the universe.... which means not likely at all...

The more time that goes by, the more amazing the Universe seems, and the less I see evidence of "God"

[Steven]

The more time that goes by, the more amazing the Universe seems, and the less I see evidence of "God"

thats a trip because Im the exact opposite - for me I cannot help but be moved that there must be "God" behind all of this incredible chaotic order.....

[phee]

thats a trip because Im the exact opposite - for me I cannot help but be moved that there must be "God" behind all of this incredible chaotic order.....

It is strange to me that people seem to think that design and chance are the only two options....

(Not in reference to you specifically... your quote just brought it to mind)

[Rev.Reverence]

The more time that goes by, the more amazing the Universe seems, and the less I see evidence of "God"

The more time that goes by, the more amazing the Universe seems, and the more I see evidence of "God".

I had to comment on above statement...

...I was inspired....

I promised TROY I would put up my favorite quote about this subject I *it* as I find it hard to quote it without the previous paragraph in place. This was written about 135 years ago, so it may be difficult to digest, as the syntax 'Olde Timee' I had to read it several times before fully wrapping my head around this; though it was writ in my Heart.

IT IS NOT MY WILL TO DISCUS THIS IN OPEN FORUM, COMMENTS WELCOME, BUT FOR ACTUAL DISCOURSE PLEASE PM ME, THANK YOU.

____"The Mason does not pretend to dogmatic certainty, nor vainly imagine such certainty attainable. He considers that if there were no written revelation, he could safely rest the hopes that animate him and the principles that guide him, on the deductions of reason and the convictions of instinct and consciousness. He can find a sure foundation for his religious belief, in these deductions of intellect and the convictions of the heart. For reason provides to him the existence and attributes of God; and those spiritual instincts which he feels are the voice of God in his soul. infuse into his mind a sence of his relation to God, a conviction of the beneficence of his Creator and Preserver, and a hope of future existence; and his reason and conscience alike unerringly point point to virtue as the highest good, and the destined aim and purpose of life.

____*"He studies the wonders of the Heavens, the frame-work and revolutions of the Earth, the mysterious beauties and adaptations of animal existence, the moral and material constitution of the human creature, so fearfully and wonderfully made; and is satisfied that God IS; and that a Wise and Good Being is the author of the starry Heavens above him, and of the moral world within him, and his mind finds an adequate foundation for its hopes, its worship, its principles of action, in the far-stretching Universe, in the glorious firmament, in the deep, full soul, bursting with unutterable thoughts."*

from Morals & Dogma, pgs.226&227

By, Albert Pike, 33*

As an afterthought:

___" We are all of us, though not equally, mistaken. The cherished dogmas of each of us are not, as we suppose, the pure truth of God; but simply our own special form of error, our guesses at truth, the refracted and fragmented rays of light that have fallen on our own minds. Our little systemshave their day, and cease to be; they are but broken lights of God; and He is more than they. Perfect truth is not attainable anywhere....."

from & By same pg.223

There it is TROY...(are you happy now; my fingers hurt.)

[phee]

The way of the universe seems to make things grow in complexity over time... (at least life itself), as well as the galaxies drifting further apart. If there were such thing as "God" it would be the most complex living thing in the Universe, which begs the question... what made it given the nature of things?

[Rev.Reverence]

The way of the universe seems to make things grow in complexity over time... (at least life itself), as well as the galaxies drifting further apart. If there were such thing as "God" it would be the most complex living thing in the Universe, which begs the question... what made it given the nature of things?

I will go with...

..God is the Universe...

[phee]

I will go with...

..God is the Universe...

That is more the Einstine use of the word "God" which is very vague... I am more refering to the Aberhamic God that most people follow today (of monotheism anyway... Judaism, Christianity, Islam.) A God that is involved, made things, decides things, listen to prayers, cares what we do as individuals, knows all the past/future, etc...

[Rev.Reverence]

but the Aberhamics all agree God is to vast to comprehend...

..thee only thing that vast is the Universe...

Therefore, vagueness can serve to Further Humanity...

[phee]

but the Aberhamics all agree God is to vast to comprehend...

..thee only thing that vast is the Universe...

Therefore, vagueness can serve to Further Humanity...

I have to disagree with that....

Most people who are religious claim to "know".... more often then they claim to "not know"

[phee]

An interesting quote on this subject:

“Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but - more frequently than not - struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God”

- Martin Luther

it is interesting because he very freely admits that ignorance is better for religion then knowledge.

[Rev.Reverence]

An interesting quote on this subject:

- Martin Luther

it is interesting because he very freely admits that ignorance is better for religion then knowledge.

...as would a first year Zen Buddhist dropout...

...as do I...

..but an acceptance of our ignorant nature, not acceptance of ignorance itself...

...

The road to enlightenment is unending...

Zen Buddhist saying

[Troy Spiral (13)]

I cant say even THIS is really an argument against god per-se, its more of an argument against the fundamentalist Christan god. But , for most people at least in the US, this is in direct opposition with the mainstream version of Christian or Christain-esque (new word? anyone? heh) cosmology. So Beer was invented about 3000+ years before man existed by this argument.

It's the Hebrew God... couldn't help but to mash semantics....

Well its the god of the Christians, and the god of Islam and the god of the Jews and the god of the Hebrews and the "Abrahamic god" all referring to the same deity. (or at least claiming to refer to the same deity)

That 4000 BC ish date of creation that i was mentioning in context there, is calculated with old and New Testament figures placed in a historical context (thus is a christian thing more than a strict early hebrew scriptures calculation). I've walked through the dating process at least 3 times (Usher - 4004 BC, Kepler - 39XX BC, Newton - 4000 BC) back when i was a more hardcore Christian and wanted to know how the heck they came up with that date.

..and yeah thats THE Issac Newton, hardcore Christian (and alchemist) which came as a shock to me when i first found out about it. Although he was a unitarian, meaning didn't believe in the trinity.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

We have to maintain some distinction with language or we cant communicate about subjects. Kinda makes communication difficult if we cant have at least some generalized terms agreed upon.

If god is the universe then we have no need of the term god. The universe is well understood to be "all of nature" "all that exists" without anything particularly supernatural about it. A deity worth the use of the name "god" has a personality and supernatural power of some sort. If we just use the term universe and god interchangeably the term god and/or universe become almost useless for discussion.

Hawking and Einstein and such (which phee references a bit above) did confuse the issue , irritatingly so (I suspect to help sell books and/or to ease their hardcore atheism into the public) interchangeably with "nature" or "the universe" , but to have a conversation we do need to have defined terms. Luckily most modern scientists tend to try and avoid this confusing smokescreen.

A lack of understanding about something, isn't a reason to assume something even harder to grasp as the reason for its existence. "Why does the wind blow?" "I don't know.. must be the flying spaghetti monster that makes it blow." For example, is a bad leap when less fantastical and unnecessary reasoning is available.

Its almost like we are just playing word games so we can maintain a belief in something like a supernatural personal thing, even though it sounds more and more like atheism. The more we mix up the scientific terms with the religious, Its like we want the respectability of science and the romanticism of religion and will confuse our terms, and massage whatever beliefs we need to massage into all sorts of contorted shapes to maintain both.

When we get to a point were we don't understand something, we should just admit we don't know, and work on figuring it out or wait for more information and not invoke some unfathomable, unprovable, untestable reason, which answers nothing and claims ultimate understanding where there is none.

...or at least thats my opinion for the next 5 minutes. Could change tomorrow.

[Destroit]

I know people don't like to talk about it.. but science came up.. which opened the door to....

The science of Quantum Physics is about a science as you can get... and still... it hints that some intelligence is behind creation...

Nobody really likes to talk about that aspect of it though.

Actually, the only reason I still really believe in God is because of science backing up my theories. Odd, huh? Everyone thinks that you either have to have creation or evolution...I picked C "All of the above".

They even had an article in Discover recently explaining our conscious mind and why after death it does not get destroyed and the fact that it's actually been in the universe since the Big Bang in one form or another. I would have to find the article again, it's in my house someplace, I could type it out and post it here, it was a very good read.

I also came to the conclusion in high school that if energy cannot be created and destroyed, only transferred...where does our life force go? (because yes we do have an actual energy life force that is unexplainable from a scientist's point of view, they only know that it's there)

Common sense things like that. I could go on for days about the physics that backs up a God, or at least some sort of an afterlife (I believe that the universe is actually a conscious being, almost like we're in the movie the Matrix, and that explains how "God" can be watching us all...because God is every particle of matter in existance and is fully aware of it...also backed up by String Theory). It would also explain why prayers work and that there is actually a being that's listening.

I haven't even gotten into alternate dimensions yet . Oh well...later maybe.

[phee]

I also came to the conclusion in high school that if energy cannot be created and destroyed, only transferred...where does our life force go? (because yes we do have an actual energy life force that is unexplainable from a scientist's point of view, they only know that it's there)

You should look up Entropy.... you may find it ineteresting

[Destroit]

You should look up Entropy.... you may find it ineteresting

I may...even the title sounds sexy. I'll check into that.

[phee]

I may...even the title sounds sexy. I'll check into that.

Its not a book.... just the concept of the energy lost....

[Destroit]

Its not a book.... just the concept of the energy lost....

Ohh...durrh. I'm slow.