Do you believe in God(s)?

[xeronix]

I do believe in a god, only one. I am quite religious, but i am also very scientific, and through research have found numerous facts of religion to be proven scientifically. Im not one that believes in macro evolution, but micro evolution is still existent today, quite obvious. Some reasoning between the ways religion is looked down upon is because of each wanting to be their own "right of passage" to heaven. Being so, every 'God' is more less the same god where as polytheistic relogions, greek and such had many, but had one main god, other could consider the lesser 'angles' if you will; as lame as that sounds. Im not bogging anyone for there views, just how things appear through how i see them, and i like what i see...

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

i am also very scientific, and through research have found numerous facts of religion to be proven scientifically

Name any whatsoever.

[TheRealOne]

I think these people that despise organized religion because they need shit to hate make normal secularists look bad. I love my fellow man. Hell, I even think his religions have often given him good focus, morals, and insight. Sure, some people use religion to do bad things or act unethically; but some people use money, authority, science, and language in the same way. It doesn't make those aspects of society inherently bad, it just makes them like any other tool.

On these forums, if there's ever a topic about religion and you have a degree of faith, you're just going to get browbeaten again into submissions using some oft-underhanded techniques of beration. You're best to stick to debates about politics, policies, and intuitive hypotheticals. The religion debate really doesn't go anywhere anymore. Moreover, it's not even fun anymore. It would have to be one of those things to be a worthwhile waste of time.

First of all I agree with you in the fact that nothing is really going to come out of debating religion because if you dont believe then you arent going to start unless God comes to you and is like "dude i am totally real" and if you do believe then you wont because there is really no way to prove scientifically that God isnt real. On that note the reason i said that i would glad to debate the topic is that I find it something interesting to discuss. I am not looking for something to hate on, I am just telling you what i think because that was the topic of discussion.

about morals, I do agree that religion has helped reinforce some morals in to society, but I think that these moral were still in place. I don't think that God gave the world a moral compass through the ten commandments. these morals would still be here today with out religion.

Yes bad things have been carried out in the name of Money, Politics, language, race, etc... anything that makes people different from one another, but many more have been in the name of God, whatever that God may be. I think this is because of the institutionalization of religion, not the belief in it. of course this could all change, as (I think i am right on these statistics but if not please correct me) from what i have seen more and more kids and newer generations become more agnostic. then soon more atrocities will be carried out because of money or political parties.

Also i am not telling anyone to give up their beliefs that would just be rude, and morally presumptuous. I am not attacking anyone either, i am just stating what i think.

[otters]

Not this again, Tsukatu.

Sorry, didn't see TheRealOne's post.

[xeronix]

Name any whatsoever.

i dont see it as harmful at all, ive been there before. See it as constructive debating... Yes its been debated over and over again. But answers still elude everyone on why one can believe so strongly in such a matter as to either completely one way or the other, or just be prefer not to go to either side of the spectrum. So ask, bash me all you want, i will try and sort things out to give you a relative position on how i view things.... But yeah its one of those subjects where things never tend to end well for either side...


Very complicated, though i guess i couldnt doubt someone to ask me that.. Ill try my best to set my words right, but you also must understand the position i look at it from is more of a favoring side towards a god "why would there not be" so to speak, though i know i should view such unbiasedly, so i will try and decipher it as such (unbiased)... For instance, every historical reference in the bible has been cross examined/ & vice-versa, and found to be true. & the ever present big bang is quite popular - genesis he spoke into existence and such not, youve already heard that before, but the rest of it being able to create earth and what not - well it didnt all happen instantaneously just reading the bible passage would be misleading. I cant remember the exact numbers, but it too so many billions of years for the universe to cool and what not... antimatter this matter that... Still the idea of time was nonexistent & only relevant so yeah its going to be interpreted wrong... So it took longer than 7 days for the mass of earth to form, thats quite knowledgeable, as well as the creation of beings... Thats a whole nother story simply because it cant be replicated the have a general idea (the whole gene pool thing by shocking something and it making enzymes) but overall naturally it cant be duplicated.. Some sections still elude me, but thats just the jist of things to come... Still going over things myself...

[Twistkill]

While I'm here, I'll address something less harmless or volatile than the "lack of evidence" argument.

Yes bad things have been carried out in the name of Money, Politics, language, race, etc... anything that makes people different from one another, but many more have been in the name of God, whatever that God may be.

These acts of malice and hatred and greed and [more negative actions] were not a result of God telling them to do it, mind you. Most of the abhorrent events, such as the crusades, persecution, hypocrisy, etc. were from human error and misconception of what He wanted, it had nothing to do with the religion they were masquerading behind. To say those things were "in the name of God" is wrong. Just because someone claims what their motivation was doesn't make it true.

[TheRealOne]

While I'm here, I'll address something less harmless or volatile than the "lack of evidence" argument.

Yes bad things have been carried out in the name of Money, Politics, language, race, etc... anything that makes people different from one another, but many more have been in the name of God, whatever that God may be.

These acts of malice and hatred and greed and [more negative actions] were not a result of God telling them to do it, mind you. Most of the abhorrent events, such as the crusades, persecution, hypocrisy, etc. were from human error and misconception of what He wanted, it had nothing to do with the religion they were masquerading behind. To say those things were "in the name of God" is wrong. Just because someone claims what their motivation was doesn't make it true.

YES!!! that is what i am saying, i am not saying that God is evil or that he told them to do it. It is that these acts have been carried out in the Name of him, not by command of him.

Since a firm belief is such a strong thing once one bad person gets an idea, they some times use religion, the institutional form, to get people to believe in his ideals. this is why i think the institutional form of religion is bad.

[blue_tetris]

The point I was making initially was that religion isn't inherently bad simply as a consequence of people using it to do bad things. It would require more than that, to make it qualitatively different than other pursuits which have been used to do harmful things.

[Condog]

While I'm here, I'll address something less harmless or volatile than the "lack of evidence" argument.

Yes bad things have been carried out in the name of Money, Politics, language, race, etc... anything that makes people different from one another, but many more have been in the name of God, whatever that God may be.

These acts of malice and hatred and greed and [more negative actions] were not a result of God telling them to do it, mind you. Most of the abhorrent events, such as the crusades, persecution, hypocrisy, etc. were from human error and misconception of what He wanted, it had nothing to do with the religion they were masquerading behind. To say those things were "in the name of God" is wrong. Just because someone claims what their motivation was doesn't make it true.

YES!!! that is what i am saying, i am not saying that God is evil or that he told them to do it. It is that these acts have been carried out in the Name of him, not by command of him.

Since a firm belief is such a strong thing once one bad person gets an idea, they some times use religion, the institutional form, to get people to believe in his ideals. this is why i think the institutional form of religion is bad.

No, twistkill is not saying that. You are saying that 'in the name of god' is not evidence of god's evil, Twistkill says 'in the name of god' is not a valid excuse, because there is no proof of gods involvement beyond their word for it.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

Name any whatsoever.

i dont see it as harmful at all, ive been there before. See it as constructive debating... Yes its been debated over and over again. But answers still elude everyone on why one can believe so strongly in such a matter as to either completely one way or the other, or just be prefer not to go to either side of the spectrum. So ask, bash me all you want, i will try and sort things out to give you a relative position on how i view things.... But yeah its one of those subjects where things never tend to end well for either side...

I'm not asking you to give me an autobiography, dude. All I asked for is a single example of any religion receiving credit from science. Neither am I here to bash you. I just haven't heard any cases of science supporting religion, so I asked.

For instance, every historical reference in the bible has been cross examined/ & vice-versa, and found to be true.

No one has ever found the Garden of Eden. Evolution shows that animals were not spontaneously generated, but that they evolved. There was never a flood that covered the whole world. Nobody has ever found evidence that all of the animals of the Earth migrated to a boat in the Middle East. Egypt, a society that was notorious for writing just about everything down, apparently doesn't believe that Moses existed. Same goes for Job and Jesus. And I can give you a link to an annotated Bible that shows hundreds upon hundreds of inconsistencies, which would make it impossible for all of the "historical" references of the Bible to have been true.
Not only have I never seen evidence to support any Biblical event, but we also have enough reasonable doubt to convince us that most of what the Bible tells didn't happen.
You can prove me wrong with a single example. The Bible is a huge book that covers a huge period of time. All you have to do is find a single one to prove me wrong.
But the tremendous number of inconsistencies in the Bible alone would sooner lead one to the conclusion that it's pure coincidence that the Bible happened to be right, rather than supporting the validity of the Bible.

the ever present big bang is quite popular - genesis he spoke into existence and such not, youve already heard that before, but the rest of it being able to create earth and what not - well it didnt all happen instantaneously just reading the bible passage would be misleading. I cant remember the exact numbers, but it too so many billions of years for the universe to cool and what not... antimatter this matter that...

You're definitely a man of science.

Still the idea of time was nonexistent & only relevant so yeah its going to be interpreted wrong... So it took longer than 7 days for the mass of earth to form, thats quite knowledgeable, as well as the creation of beings... Thats a whole nother story simply because it cant be replicated the have a general idea (the whole gene pool thing by shocking something and it making enzymes) but overall naturally it cant be duplicated.. Some sections still elude me, but thats just the jist of things to come... Still going over things myself...

I have very little idea of what you've just tried to say.
If you're suggesting that Genesis accurately describes the Big Bang, you'd also be wrong. Genesis says that God created "the heaven and the Earth" together, whereas their creation was separated by 9.1 billion years. God creates light after He sees that the Earth is dark, which implies that the universe was completely without light for those 9.1 billion years before the creation of the Earth. And apparently plants existed before the Sun did. If you're to be believed that each "day" is a hugely long time, then this is especially nonsensical. Consider also that this means that light existed before anything that gives off light existed. God then proceeds to make animals in an order that Evolution disagrees heavily with.
And then God proceeds to do all of that all over again in the next Chapter, but in a different order (but still one that disagrees with science). No explanation given, He just does it all again.
Please do your research in the future.

[Radium]

I am a man of science.

Man really should not try to comprehend the greatness and complexity of our universe.

Hmmmm......

Wow I just got epically owned. Sorry 'bout that. I meant the Church should not try to...

[TheRealOne]

No, twistkill is not saying that. You are saying that 'in the name of god' is not evidence of god's evil, Twistkill says 'in the name of god' is not a valid excuse, because there is no proof of gods involvement beyond their word for it.

Ooo... OK, well, I am trying to say that "In the name of God" is someone say that the reason they did something is because God wants them too, Either through them saying that God told them directly, or through their interpretation of the doctrine on their chosen faith.

And my issue with Institutionalized Religion is the exploitation of it, and how people use it to force these faiths on people, or to get people to do awful things that other wise they wouldn't have done.

Now in a perfect world Organized religion would be fine it would just be a group of people coming together to talk, discuss, celebrate, or w/e; their faith with one another.

also another issue I think people are bring up to me, or might be there in this debate, is that i am saying that going to church is a bad thing, and i am not. I think the church system as a whole is a bad thing.

[xeronix]

I have very little idea of what you've just tried to say.
If you're suggesting that Genesis accurately describes the Big Bang, you'd also be wrong. Genesis says that God created "the heaven and the Earth" together, whereas their creation was separated by 9.1 billion years. God creates light after He sees that the Earth is dark, which implies that the universe was completely without light for those 9.1 billion years before the creation of the Earth. And apparently plants existed before the Sun did. If you're to be believed that each "day" is a hugely long time, then this is especially nonsensical. Consider also that this means that light existed before anything that gives off light existed. God then proceeds to make animals in an order that Evolution disagrees heavily with.
And then God proceeds to do all of that all over again in the next Chapter, but in a different order (but still one that disagrees with science). No explanation given, He just does it all again.
Please do your research in the future.

In reference to light, its not physically light- but supposedly his light (not sure how else to word that correctly) & i understand what youre talking about the spontanious creation, im still a little iffy on that as well, like i said it still eludes me. Also one thing to mention the radio carbon dating process they use can be somewhat off... Needless to say the eruption of ... the name excaped me at the moment, i will come back to it... But it knocked thousands of trees and such into a lake where not long after they became petrified, well anyways the carbon dating on them was merely millions of years... so what im trying to explain is that the living object that science says takes billions of years to evolve, could be calculated wrong in the sense that once the minerals replace the actual living matter/ dieing matter that it waivers the calculation because its not processing the correct percentage. And for the layers of the stratosphere, the matter is billions of years old from the "big bang" if you will collecting and being compresses and as the air & ash fall creating new layers as such so again the dating is off, just because it may say it billions of years old does not reason it to be, the earth in its entirety is only 6000 something years old round about, the material that composes it is billions of years old.

[DemonzLunchBreak]

This is just a suggestion, xeronix, but your arguments would be much more effective if you were to use better grammar and spelling. Your current standards make your posts hard to follow, which isn't good in this part of the forum, where we want to exchange information.

[xeronix]

I didnt realize that my spelling was that off, but i do know that my grammar isnt up to par, simply because im to lazy to care (even though i know i should) ... Its one of those things thats like; eh its the internet, whos going to really care... Well i guess some people do. Sorry if it makes things complicated. If ive lost you somewhere let me know, i will try and clarify it if you need me to.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

In reference to light, its not physically light- but supposedly his light

You're claiming that Science can verify that somehow?

i understand what youre talking about the spontanious creation, im still a little iffy on that as well, like i said it still eludes me.

And yet you said that every part of the Bible has been proven correct. I take it you're not the one who knows it's been fully proven.
So which moron did you hear it from, then?

Also one thing to mention the radio carbon dating process they use can be somewhat off... Needless to say the eruption of ... the name excaped me at the moment, i will come back to it... But it knocked thousands of trees and such into a lake where not long after they became petrified, well anyways the carbon dating on them was merely millions of years... so what im trying to explain is that the living object that science says takes billions of years to evolve, could be calculated wrong in the sense that once the minerals replace the actual living matter/ dieing matter that it waivers the calculation because its not processing the correct percentage.

Y'know, there's an awful lot of heavily validated scientific theories that religious people seem to love attacking, and the scientific community just ignores them because the support for the theories is just overwhelming. Carbon dating is one of those theories.

the earth in its entirety is only 6000 something years old round about, the material that composes it is billions of years old.

That explains a lot.
I'm sorry, but you're not allowed to say that you're a man of science if you're a Young Earth Creationist.
I think I'm done here. Good day, sir.

[xeronix]

it was worth a shot, and thank you for the pleasure... I tried- ... & i meant historical references as to when man was around, no excuses, & quite obviously i havent looked into it as deeply as you may have.

[ZZ9]

the earth in its entirety is only 6000 something years old round about, the material that composes it is billions of years old.

Objection, your honour.

Also, what makes you think that God created the universe, rather than, say, a flying spaghetti monster? (who is invisible and omnipotent.)

[otters]

the earth in its entirety is only 6000 something years old round about, the material that composes it is billions of years old.

Also, what makes you think that God created the universe, rather than, say, a flying spaghetti monster? (who is invisible and omnipotent.)

Enough of this. Seriously. You've already "proven" us wrong, you don't have to mock our religion as well.

[乳头的早餐谷物]

Also, what makes you think that God created the universe, rather than, say, a flying spaghetti monster? (who is invisible and omnipotent.)

Enough of this. Seriously. You've already "proven" us wrong, you don't have to mock our religion as well.

But pretend the FSM part isn't there and you've got yourself a reasonable question.

[otters]

Also, what makes you think that God created the universe, rather than, say, a flying spaghetti monster? (who is invisible and omnipotent.)

Enough of this. Seriously. You've already "proven" us wrong, you don't have to mock our religion as well.

But pretend the FSM part isn't there and you've got yourself a reasonable question.

Acknowledged.

[blackson]

I was grown up in the baptismal system, but with science and other arguing theories, I don't know what to think anymore.

[xeronix]

i never said that was accurate, thats why i said 6000 round about... I used to have a pdf file with all the stuff in it, but alas, its on my old computer. Its been years since ive looked at it, so the exact details arnt going to be 100% accurate... Either way the idea of a FSM... is actually kinda entertaining, but... yeah, it is a reasonable question indeed.

[otters]

Actually, Blackson, I'm much like you.

[Donfuy]

I don't.

God's a fictional character in people's minds, so that they feel protected. I don't feel.