What are your beliefs on religion, god?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Smart ass answer: When I see Him, I'll ask Him. ;)

I take the view of the creation story in Genesis that God gave the author the broad strokes of creation in a series of dreams or visions that are recorded as days. I don't take it as a literal description of exactly how things happened, which if you think of it, would be as absurd as trying to explain quantum mechanics to a gnat.

Absolutely this. Especially from an omnipresent God. A day to him could be as relevant to a zillion years to us. And factoring that civilization back then had no idea about the number billion either. And with history being so small; without the technology that couldn't compute to an average lifespan of 40 years; a day is a large number! :)
 
Smart ass answer: When I see Him, I'll ask Him. ;)

I take the view of the creation story in Genesis that God gave the author the broad strokes of creation in a series of dreams or visions that are recorded as days. I don't take it as a literal description of exactly how things happened, which if you think of it, would be as absurd as trying to explain quantum mechanics to a gnat.

Old Testament? That's just an allegory. New Testament? DEFINITELY HAPPENED!
 
Old Testament? That's just an allegory. New Testament? DEFINITELY HAPPENED!

Could be possible. I mean trying to tell your 3 year old daughter how fusion works; you may have to use Barney, teddy and the choo choo train.

The new testiment is mainly focused on salvation; which still can be interpreted as a allegory as well; but the actual message is pretty sound.
 
I've read some of this thread, but have not participated in the conversation up to this point. I believe there is a God responsible for the creation of the universe and the life within it. I'm a Christian. I'm not a Catholic, but I find the following piece I've copied from a Catholic website tracks pretty well with my general outlook on the evolution/creation topic:

Interesting, and welcome to the discussion e_blazer.

So although I am an atheist, I really have no problem with your view. Science does not answer 2 questions which are central to your viewpoint. 1) How did everything (or whatever preceded the big big bang) start, and 2) do we have souls. Since your view does not run contrary to science I think it's a perfectly decent view. I have a big problem with any religious views which if they are correct, invalidate what we believe science to have clearly demonstrated. Science can be debunked, but it must be done scientifically. If your religious view is that gravity does not exist, I say stupid belief. But if your religious view says gravity does not exist in the afterlife, I'm cool with that since it goes to an answer something which science does not.
The way I see it, your view still appreciates research, medicine, and the attainment of scientific knowledge. As long as that's the case, we can break bread and laugh together.
 
You realize the Bible was many stories by men cobbled into one book by men, right? There are TWO creation stories right off the bat: in the beginning, and garden of Eden.

There are many stories that could have been included, but the men who decided which ones went into the bible chose the ones they did.
 
You realize the Bible was many stories by men cobbled into one book by men, right? There are TWO creation stories right off the bat: in the beginning, and garden of Eden.

There are many stories that could have been included, but the men who decided which ones went into the bible chose the ones they did.

As an agnostic view; it's an absolutely logical view. As the theistic view; we believe that the books compiled were ordained by God.

As an agnostic or atheist; this probably seems absurd. To the theist; this is hardly absurd. If god has the power to create the universe; he has the power to direct what books are compiled in the bible.
 
Interesting, and welcome to the discussion e_blazer.

So although I am an atheist, I really have no problem with your view. Science does not answer 2 questions which are central to your viewpoint. 1) How did everything (or whatever preceded the big big bang) start, and 2) do we have souls. Since your view does not run contrary to science I think it's a perfectly decent view. I have a big problem with any religious views which if they are correct, invalidate what we believe science to have clearly demonstrated. Science can be debunked, but it must be done scientifically. If your religious view is that gravity does not exist, I say stupid belief. But if your religious view says gravity does not exist in the afterlife, I'm cool with that since it goes to an answer something which science does not.
The way I see it, your view still appreciates research, medicine, and the attainment of scientific knowledge. As long as that's the case, we can break bread and laugh together.

I can dig it.
 
http://www.westarinstitute.org/Periodicals/4R_Articles/canon.html

How did the church decide which books belong to the New Testament? When was the decision made? The answers to these questions constitute one of the most revealing yet least known aspects of early Christian history.

This question is traditionally referred to as the formation of the canon. The meaning of the Greek term canon is "norm" or "rule," the standard by which things can be measured. In designating the twenty-seven books of the New Testament as a canon, the church was declaring them to be its "rule" for faith and practice, its "normative" collection of writings.

The first list of "canonical" books that names the same twenty-seven writings found in our New Testament appears in the Easter letter of Athanasius , Bishop of Alexandria, Egypt, in 367 C.E. He names them in a different order, to be sure. Even so, the first list that agrees with ours was a long time in coming

(MEN chose what books and what order, and over 350 years after Christ)

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/gen1st.htm

1. In the Beginning: Two Stories of Creation

by Doug Linder (2004)

In the beginning, about 3,000 years ago*, Jewish desert dwellers in what is present-day southern Israel told a story around campfires about the creation of the first man and first woman. The story they told, and passed on to generations of future desert dwellers, described a pre-creation scene much like the desert landscape in which they daily struggled for existence. From the dry desert dust the Creator forms a man and breaths life into him, and then places him in a beautiful oasis-like garden, abundant with fruits. The Creator takes a personal interest in this first man, and sets about trying to find him a suitable companion. When none of the creatures He first forms provides the man the comfort He had hoped, the Creator makes the first woman. Everything goes well for a spell, in the story told in the desert, but then the Creator is disobeyed and bad things start to happen.

Four or five centuries later, five-hundred-plus miles to the east in what is most likely present-day Iraq, a remarkable Jewish writer—whose name we do not know—set about the ambitious task of constructing a primary history of his people. Evil Merodach reigned in this dark time of Jewish exile, around 560 B.C., and the writer hoped that his history would help his people endure their many trials. The writer was most likely a priest, and might have been assisted in his work by other priests and scribes. To accomplish his mission, he acquired at least two pre-existing writings on Jewish history. The prior writings came from different places and different times. One set of writings used the Canaanite term, “Elohim,” as the name of the creator god. A second set of writings, more ancient than the first, used a Judean term, “YHWH” (translated “Jehovah” in English), to describe its deity.

The priest wove the two texts together, trying to avoid repetition and altering them where necessary to avoid blatant inconsistencies. The priest confronted an additional problem: the two texts originally reflected views about two different gods in a time of polytheism, but by the time he compiled his history, belief in a single god had become prevalent among Jews. The priest, therefore, sought to remove passages supporting the polytheism of an earlier age—and, except for a few hints here and there, he succeeded. Finally, he added some writing of his own, or of his priestly contemporaries, that reflected the ideas of his own, more mature, period of Judaism.

(Written and edited by man)

The story the writer put together from the various texts is a compelling one. “The greatest story ever told,” it is now often called. Without question, it is the most significant history—if that term is appropriate for such a blend of real events and legends—ever written. Some of the events he described are consistent with other historical records, but many others—generally those before the time of Saul and David, or about 1000 B.C.—cannot be tested for accuracy, and are no doubt shaped to reflect the priest’s religious and political goals. The history includes dramatic accounts of persecution, escape, exile, sacrifice, and global devastation by a great flood. It tells of a creator god who watches over his people, tests his people, and promises them great things if only they honor his commandments. As any great story must, the history has villains and it has heroes. No figure plays a more heroic and central role in the priest’s work than a prophet by the name of Moses, born in Egypt in the 13th century B.C. Remarkably, memory of Moses survived in the writer’s people through seven centuries—and was, in fact, the inspiration for the task he gave himself.

The writer believed that his story would not be complete without an explanation of how things--the sun, the earth, the seas—and life--plants, animals, and humans--came to be. For good measure, the writer decided to include two such explanations. He did so even though the two stories contradicted each other on several points.
 
http://www.westarinstitute.org/Periodicals/4R_Articles/canon.html

How did the church decide which books belong to the New Testament? When was the decision made? The answers to these questions constitute one of the most revealing yet least known aspects of early Christian history.

This question is traditionally referred to as the formation of the canon. The meaning of the Greek term canon is "norm" or "rule," the standard by which things can be measured. In designating the twenty-seven books of the New Testament as a canon, the church was declaring them to be its "rule" for faith and practice, its "normative" collection of writings.

The first list of "canonical" books that names the same twenty-seven writings found in our New Testament appears in the Easter letter of Athanasius , Bishop of Alexandria, Egypt, in 367 C.E. He names them in a different order, to be sure. Even so, the first list that agrees with ours was a long time in coming

(MEN chose what books and what order, and over 350 years after Christ)

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/gen1st.htm

1. In the Beginning: Two Stories of Creation

by Doug Linder (2004)

In the beginning, about 3,000 years ago*, Jewish desert dwellers in what is present-day southern Israel told a story around campfires about the creation of the first man and first woman. The story they told, and passed on to generations of future desert dwellers, described a pre-creation scene much like the desert landscape in which they daily struggled for existence. From the dry desert dust the Creator forms a man and breaths life into him, and then places him in a beautiful oasis-like garden, abundant with fruits. The Creator takes a personal interest in this first man, and sets about trying to find him a suitable companion. When none of the creatures He first forms provides the man the comfort He had hoped, the Creator makes the first woman. Everything goes well for a spell, in the story told in the desert, but then the Creator is disobeyed and bad things start to happen.

Four or five centuries later, five-hundred-plus miles to the east in what is most likely present-day Iraq, a remarkable Jewish writer—whose name we do not know—set about the ambitious task of constructing a primary history of his people. Evil Merodach reigned in this dark time of Jewish exile, around 560 B.C., and the writer hoped that his history would help his people endure their many trials. The writer was most likely a priest, and might have been assisted in his work by other priests and scribes. To accomplish his mission, he acquired at least two pre-existing writings on Jewish history. The prior writings came from different places and different times. One set of writings used the Canaanite term, “Elohim,” as the name of the creator god. A second set of writings, more ancient than the first, used a Judean term, “YHWH” (translated “Jehovah” in English), to describe its deity.

The priest wove the two texts together, trying to avoid repetition and altering them where necessary to avoid blatant inconsistencies. The priest confronted an additional problem: the two texts originally reflected views about two different gods in a time of polytheism, but by the time he compiled his history, belief in a single god had become prevalent among Jews. The priest, therefore, sought to remove passages supporting the polytheism of an earlier age—and, except for a few hints here and there, he succeeded. Finally, he added some writing of his own, or of his priestly contemporaries, that reflected the ideas of his own, more mature, period of Judaism.

(Written and edited by man)

The story the writer put together from the various texts is a compelling one. “The greatest story ever told,” it is now often called. Without question, it is the most significant history—if that term is appropriate for such a blend of real events and legends—ever written. Some of the events he described are consistent with other historical records, but many others—generally those before the time of Saul and David, or about 1000 B.C.—cannot be tested for accuracy, and are no doubt shaped to reflect the priest’s religious and political goals. The history includes dramatic accounts of persecution, escape, exile, sacrifice, and global devastation by a great flood. It tells of a creator god who watches over his people, tests his people, and promises them great things if only they honor his commandments. As any great story must, the history has villains and it has heroes. No figure plays a more heroic and central role in the priest’s work than a prophet by the name of Moses, born in Egypt in the 13th century B.C. Remarkably, memory of Moses survived in the writer’s people through seven centuries—and was, in fact, the inspiration for the task he gave himself.

The writer believed that his story would not be complete without an explanation of how things--the sun, the earth, the seas—and life--plants, animals, and humans--came to be. For good measure, the writer decided to include two such explanations. He did so even though the two stories contradicted each other on several points.

I find it really strange that you would put teeth on the biography of a supposed writer 2,000+ years ago, but renounce all the historical evidence of the existing bible; which ironically was told by historials that spent 30+ years of their life in this field.

I guess when something works to your advantage than its fine, but if it goes against your argument, you just say its bullshit! Lmao
 
Interesting, and welcome to the discussion e_blazer.

So although I am an atheist, I really have no problem with your view. Science does not answer 2 questions which are central to your viewpoint. 1) How did everything (or whatever preceded the big big bang) start, and 2) do we have souls. Since your view does not run contrary to science I think it's a perfectly decent view. I have a big problem with any religious views which if they are correct, invalidate what we believe science to have clearly demonstrated. Science can be debunked, but it must be done scientifically. If your religious view is that gravity does not exist, I say stupid belief. But if your religious view says gravity does not exist in the afterlife, I'm cool with that since it goes to an answer something which science does not.
The way I see it, your view still appreciates research, medicine, and the attainment of scientific knowledge. As long as that's the case, we can break bread and laugh together.




ack. no disrespect to anyone, but this is just more NOMA-like pandering.

from a scientific standpoint how is belief that gravity does not exist in the afterlife any less stupid than belief that gravity does not exist?

i'm all for civil discussion and respecting and remaining friendly with people who don't share ones views, but that does not mean that specific beliefs people hold should be respected and lent any credibility if they are demonstratably superstitious and completely unsupported by objective evidence.
 
Last edited:
ack. no disrespect to anyone, but this is just more NOMA-like pandering.

from a scientific standpoint how is the hypothesis that gravity does not exist in the afterlife any less stupid than the hypothesis that gravity does not exist?

i'm all for civil discussion and respecting and remaining friendly with people who don't share ones views, but that does not mean that specific beliefs people hold should be respected and lent any credibility if they are demonstratably superstitious and completely unsupported by objective evidence.
Very simply, science does not have any way to measure the existence or lack thereof, of an afterlife. So, if science can't address (now or even in the foreseeable future) the afterlife, how can it address what may or may not exist in the afterlife.

A while ago you mentioned the Teapot thing (I can't recall the exact term, but you know what I mean) I see no reason to believe there is a teapot floating out there, but that is addressable in theory using science even if science would most likely fail at proving or disproving the teapot. In that situation, where something espoused is as crazy as the Teapot, it would however still exist in our realm, so you could say the responsibility lies on the believer since its existence could be proved. However, saying there is a teapot in the afterlife is in no way measurable. We can not map the afterlife like we could space (theoretically) so the two belief systems 1)science 2) Teapot in the afterlife, can coexist. It is not the duty of science to address what science can not measure, and it is not religions job to do anything except annoy us when it comes to claims which can not be addressed in reality.

This might have been rambling, and if so I will try and suss out my thoughts a little later while not trying to finish up work for the week. Let me know if I made no sense.

Also, it is not pandering. Science deals with reality, period. If religious beliefs enter reality, then fine, but as long as the beliefs deal in some other realm then it would be WRONG for me to claim science can answer the issue. Science is beautiful because of its purity. It deals in the measurable, it deals in reality, it deals in the testable, and it does not try and answer that which is unknowable.
 
Last edited:
ack. no disrespect to anyone, but this is just more NOMA-like pandering.

from a scientific standpoint how is belief that gravity does not exist in the afterlife any less stupid than belief that gravity does not exist?

i'm all for civil discussion and respecting and remaining friendly with people who don't share ones views, but that does not mean that specific beliefs people hold should be respected and lent any credibility if they are demonstratably superstitious and completely unsupported by objective evidence.

Not saying I agree with this gravity thing not effecting the afterlife; but wasn't there studies that showed the absence of gravity in high powered vacuum chambers?
 
Also, this is not pandering because it is truly how I feel. I am not saying it to get the love and adulation of the god-fearing.

Yes, I like most of the posters here, but all my postings here are how I view the subject of the science and religion. It is my love of science that binds me from claiming that science has more power than it does. Science is the search for verifiable truth. Once you take out the word verifiable, you are left with religion.
 
Also, this is not pandering because it is truly how I feel. I am not saying it to get the love and adulation of the god-fearing.

Yes, I like most of the posters here, but all my postings here are how I view the subject of the science and religion. It is my love of science that binds me from claiming that science has more power than it does. Science is the search for verifiable truth. Once you take out the word verifiable, you are left with religion.

Reppd! Nice way of putting it!
 
Very simply, science does not have any way to measure the existence or lack thereof, of an afterlife. So, if science can't address (now or even in the foreseeable future) the afterlife, how can it address what may or may not exist in the afterlife.

ok i'll just call you Trip2 :cheers:

you also seem to be hung up on what is in my view an unnecessarily (semantically) narrow view of what constitutes scientific knowledge and how it is amassed - one that in my experience the scientific community itself as a whole does not adhere to.

science deals in probability and can and does have a lot to say about the probability that human individual consciousness, self-awareness, & personality continue after death. there is a mountain of objective evidence indicating these traits emerge from purely physical processes that require life (and to address the Catholic notion of a soul specifically, that humans are no different than other animal species). the fact that we cannot directly measure for the existence of an afterlife or a soul does not mean what we CAN objectively infer from the evidence about the probability of an afterlife/soul is unscientific or meaningless.


A while ago you mentioned the Teapot thing (I can't recall the exact term, but you know what I mean) I see no reason to believe there is a teapot floating out there, but that is addressable in theory using science even if science would most likely fail at proving or disproving the teapot. In that situation, where something espoused is as crazy as the Teapot, it would however still exist in our realm, so you could say the responsibility lies on the believer since its existence could be proved. However, saying there is a teapot in the afterlife is in no way measurable. We can not map the afterlife like we could space (theoretically) so the two belief systems 1)science 2) Teapot in the afterlife, can coexist. It is not the duty of science to address what science can not measure, and it is not religions job to do anything except annoy us when it comes to claims which can not be addressed in reality.

Again I don't get this at all. How is belief in an afterlife any less unscientific or any less crazy (to use your word), or how does it require any less of a burden of proof than belief in Russell's Teapot?

There is no evidence for either. The fact that you think the teapot is in principal accessible to testing by science and an afterlife is not does not make belief in the latter any more valid from a scientific standpoint.

Also, it is not pandering. Science deals with reality, period. If religious beliefs enter reality, then fine, but as long as the beliefs deal in some other realm then it would be WRONG for me to claim science can answer the issue.

this unfortunately is taking the exact same path i went down with Trip. i did not say or imply that science should claim to answer the unanswerable. i'm just advocating not using language that lends credibility to the notion of a religious 'realm' of knowledge that CAN answer unanswerable questions :smile:
 
Also, this is not pandering because it is truly how I feel.

ok sorry. again i meant the words you are using effectively pander to religious belief - unnecessarily validate and perpetuate. i didn't mean to imply your are being insincere.
 
ok i'll just call you Trip2 :cheers:
don't confuse me with that windbag of an ass! Kidding, trip and I do think alike. As do you and I on most issues it would seem. :cheers:

you also seem to be hung up on what is in my view an unnecessarily (semantically) narrow view of what constitutes scientific knowledge and how it is amassed - one that in my experience the scientific community itself as a whole does not adhere to.
I'm not sure how to explain myself succinctly, so here is what I think in a more roundabout way.

I believe in things to which I see reasonable evidence. So, I believe in biology, I believe in math, I believe the sky is sometimes blue. Conversely, I see no evidence at all of there being a god. I see no evidence in there being an afterlife. Hence, I do not believe in god or an afterlife. But all science tells me is that there is no (scientific) evidence for a god or afterlife, it does not tell me that I am right to not believe in god or an afterlife.

Science does rely on probabilities. But where are these probabilities you speak of that god does not exist. Sure, you can say science demonstrates that what many refer to as a near-death experience can be explained by neuroscience. But that does not mean there is no afterlife. It only means that what people often refer to as a near death experience is most likely not correct. One thing is measurable, one thing isn't.
science deals in probability and can and does have a lot to say about the probability that human individual consciousness, self-awareness, & personality continue after death. there is a mountain of objective evidence indicating these traits emerge from purely physical processes that require life (and to address the Catholic notion of a soul specifically, that humans are no different than other animal species). the fact that we cannot directly measure for the existence of an afterlife or a soul does not mean what we CAN objectively infer from the evidence about the probability of an afterlife/soul is unscientific or meaningless.

I'm fine taking data that indirectly measures, but everything you list doesn't. There is no way to directly or indirectly measure the existence of a soul. We can measure things sometimes associated with a soul according to specific belief sets, but those things should not be mixed up with measuring for a soul.


Again I don't get this at all. How is belief in an afterlife any less unscientific or any less crazy (to use your word), or how does it require any less of a burden of proof than belief in Russell's Teapot?
Although it would be near impossible, we could send out thousands of space probes that mathematically split up the area of space and search for the teapot. After conclusion of that mission the amount of space searched, time searched, # of probes, could all be analyzed to provide some scientific conclusion like there is a 99.5% chance that no teapot exists. But there is no way even in theory to calculate the probability of afterlife.

There is no evidence for either. The fact that you think the teapot is in principal accessible to testing by science and an afterlife is not does not make belief in the latter any more valid from a scientific standpoint.
It makes one theoretically testable and not the other. Science speaks to one, philosophy the other.

this unfortunately is taking the exact same path i went down with Trip. i did not say or imply that science should claim to answer the unanswerable. i'm just advocating not using language that lends credibility to the notion of a religious 'realm' of knowledge that CAN answer unanswerable questions :smile:

All I know is what science can/can't answer. But for the information it can't, even if I think it's silly I can't claim science can give an answer.
 
Last edited:
I will not get sucked back into this thread... I will NOT get sucked back into this thread...
 
I good with letting it die. But I wonder, where will the thread go when it dies?
 
I will not get sucked back into this thread... I will NOT get sucked back into this thread...

don't confuse me with that windbag of an ass! Kidding, trip and I do think alike. As do you and I on most issues it would seem. :cheers:
By the way trip, I only called you a windbag of an ass because its scientifically provable.
 
I good with letting it die. But I wonder, where will the thread go when it dies?

It may very well depend on if you're a pre-playoffs or post-playoffs believer......or not.
 
All I know is what science can/can't answer. But for the information it can't, even if I think it's silly I can't claim science can give an answer.

How do you know this? The "soul," as religious people see it, has never been discovered. As far as anyone knows, it doesn't exist. If it was found, science would be able to give an answer.


Science speaks to one, philosophy the other.

Science has been answering philosophical questions since science began. I see absolutely no reason to believe that won't continue.
 
I won't say science will never be able to answer the question of soul, but as of now I see no way to measure the existence of a soul, directly or indirectly. If we ever are able to measure it, it means that the soul would exist. Catch 22
 
I won't say science will never be able to answer the question of soul, but as of now I see no way to measure the existence of a soul, directly or indirectly. If we ever are able to measure it, it means that the soul would exist. Catch 22

That's my point, if the soul was proven real (as in the discovery of a whole new.. thing), it would be by science. It wouldn't be any more religious or philosophical than the brain is.
 
this made me laugh. thanks

See there is a difference between you and I. I can actually see the point when I know it's written with good intentions. You, on the other hand, have a very sarcastic agenda. I would bet even if god himself came before you; you would say it was a figment of your imagination.
 
Ya VG, I'm with you. But as of now, with no evidence pointing towards the discovery, I will say that most likely science will not be addressing this question. However, as with everything, I will reassess any past assumptions once better data is presented.
 
Last edited:
Ya, I'm with you. But as of now, with no evidence pointing towards the discovery, I will say that most likely science will not be addressing this question. However, as with everything, I will reassess any past assumptions once better data is presented.

Agreed. Just wanted to clarify that.
 
See there is a difference between you and I. I can actually see the point when I know it's written with good intentions. You, on the other hand, have a very sarcastic agenda. I would bet even if god himself came before you; you would say it was a figment of your imagination.

I don't know he's been talking with me all thread.


GOD
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top