Do you believe in God?

[aeris09]

I believe in God of course. I'm a christian. IMO, all religions have the same God, they're just being called in different names. And I respect them, I also respect those who doesn't believe in God. I think it's understandable. It's hard to believe in something that none has ever seen and has a great power that created man kind and the world. But for me, I believe God because I want to. Because I need him. He's like a guide, someone to help us know there's hope, because people need something to believe in. To know there's someone out there helping them. It may sound like he's just something people made in order to feel comfortable but what I'm trying to say is, even if we don't see him, even if no one has confirmed he exists, as long as there are people believing, he's there. It's just a matter of having faith. Because in the end it's not you're religion or beliefs that's gonna save you, it's your faith.
this was a hard question, or rather, it's the answer that's hard to explain. I just hope I made sense.

 

[Trismegistus]

Agnosticism
is more absolute than people seem to think. A pure agnostic believes that there is no way of knowing for certain if a higher deity exists. Being confused on the subject does not make you an agnostic, it just means you don't know.

Sum1sgruj, you're contradicting yourself there. The very nature of uncertainty completely invalidates absolutes. So whether or not some agnostics are confused, it doesn't really matter. Their uncertainty cements their position as agnostics. Yes, I do not know the answer; for I am uncertain.

I consider myself a general model agnostic mystic (which, I know, is quite a mouthful ). By this, I mean that I'm not only agnostic about God alone, but agnostic about the nature of everything. And the only coherent signals that I can comprehend, come straight from within me through the workings of my central nervous system -- hence, the mystic.

Something unknown, unspeakable,
before Earth or sky,
before life or death,
I do not know what to call it,
So I call it Tao

-- Laozi

 

[Caitshift]

I'm christian, i believe in some ''higher power'' but not a man with a beard and sitting on a cloud below heaven's gates. But yes i do believe that there is a ''higher power'' that people pray on. Oh gawd...this sounds like somekind of rpg...

 

[Cecil Strife]

If its a flying spaghetti monster, then that being is God.

Somehow, I can't imagine God as a flying spaghetti monster. Or a flying spaghetti monster in general XD

I've believed in God ever since I was born. It just seems hard to imagine the Big Bang theory for me. I just can't believe that everything just came from nothing. I do understand why people would question God though. There is no visual proof right in front of you that proves God was there.

My uncle is probably the most religious person in the state, so that has an influence on me too. Any religion could be right. Christianity is just the one I believe is the real way the world was created. It's just me.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

Sum1sgruj, you're contradicting yourself there. The very nature of uncertainty completely invalidates absolutes. So whether or not some agnostics are confused, it doesn't really matter. Their uncertainty cements their position as agnostics. Yes, I do not know the answer; for I am uncertain.

I consider myself a general model agnostic mystic (which, I know, is quite a mouthful ). By this, I mean that I'm not only agnostic about God alone, but agnostic about the nature of everything. And the only coherent signals that I can comprehend, come straight from within me through the workings of my central nervous system -- hence, the mystic.

OBJECTION! relevance//

There are two ways to go about agnosticism. There's a general definition, and then there are actual groups who are somewhere between scientology and theism, who are branded agnostic. It's like conservative: I am conservative of the well water. In another sense: I'm an American conservative.
Sorry for the confusion, sometimes I rush in and assume everyone already knows the backdrop details_ and I was misleading all the same.

Still,

Relevance!! I do not wish to see this thread go to hell like other's I've seen_

 

[Trismegistus]

OBJECTION! relevance//

There are two ways to go about agnosticism. There's a general definition, and then there are actual groups who are somewhere between scientology and theism, who are branded agnostic. It's like conservative: I am conservative of the well water. In another sense: I'm an American conservative.
Sorry for the confusion, sometimes I rush in and assume everyone already knows the backdrop details_ and I was misleading all the same.

Still,

Relevance!! I do not wish to see this thread go to hell like other's I've seen_

I understand that there are more ways to go about agnosticism than just general agnosticism. But you said that just because you're confused, that doesn't make you agnostic; and that that by being confused, that doesn't make one agnostic, it just means that one doesn't know.

The reason I placed "one doesn't know" in bold is because that's where you went wrong. If one doesn't know then that immediately falls under the umbrella of agnosticism. Sure, there are many types of agnosticism that people adhere to; but by simply not committing yourself to a belief on the nature of god due to uncertainty, then that labels you essentially as an agnostic -- because you simply do not know.

Now I personally don't like labels that much. But sometimes, they just make things easier for others to comprehend, since, for now, we're all under the mercy of language if we wish to be understood.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

Hey, I admitted that I was misleading but since you're trying to sink your teeth into it:

Let me refer to the example I used earlier. Conserving well water and being a U.S. conservative- they are speaking of two entirely different things.
The true nature of a U.S. conservative is rather preservation. Why is it not called that? Maybe to avoid the troublesome past of slavery, who the hell knows, but it stands as a very good example of what I'm talking about.

Being confused and not knowing are two different things. In confusion, you would like to see the truth, but cant. In not knowing, you just accept the fact that you don't know.

Sure, agnostic means either or, but going on the 'conservative' example above: If Barack Obama came by your house to ask if you're a conservative or liberal, what basis will serve as you're answer,, the country, or the well water_

The point is, you'll hear many people say they are agnostic. It doesn't mean they are ill-informed, they are just abusing the word. You don't go around saying you're agnostic about what to grab for dinner, do you?

And until confused people start forming groups and posting up all over the world, I'm afraid they'll just have to take it up with Webster and ask why he defined such a two-faced word

 

[Angelus the Wraith]

I don't believe in God or creation. It seems very unlikely that a random omnipotent being just appeared out of nowhere wrote a book. Also, I don't think any religion has sufficient facts and evidence to make me believe in a divine being.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

I don't believe in God or creation. It seems very unlikely that a random omnipotent being just appeared out of nowhere wrote a book. Also, I don't think any religion has sufficient facts and evidence to make me believe in a divine being.

You should believe in something. I know this isn't a debate, but you should think about it on a deeper level. It's just as unlikely that the universe is infinite and came from nothing.
One thought that really makes my mind jump through hoops, is this: Could 'divinity' just be scientific mastery?
And yes it's mathematical anomaly that the universe is infinite and came from nothing, but where did a creator come from?
If there's anything I know for sure, it's this: We are missing a huge piece of whats going on to just assume the latter

Just food for thought. The Bible has contradictions. Science has contradictions. We live in contradiction lol

 

[Jamesy]

You should believe in something. I know this isn't a debate, but you should think about it on a deeper level. It's just as unlikely that the universe is infinite and came from nothing.
One thought that really makes my mind jump through hoops, is this: Could 'divinity' just be scientific mastery?
And yes it's mathematical anomaly that the universe is infinite and came from nothing, but where did a creator come from?
If there's anything I know for sure, it's this: We are missing a huge piece of whats going on to just assume the latter

Just food for thought. The Bible has contradictions. Science has contradictions. We live in contradiction lol

Sciences contradictions come through trial and error and are always open to debate, unlike the bible. The Vatican didnt spend a thousand years pillaging non-believers and prying into the private lives of everyone under its power to be told otherwise. It may or not be beyond our technology to understand where the universe came from or how it formed to begin with, doesn't mean we should be looking to a book written by men (and re-written numerous times making up rules as times and social norms dictate) for answers.

As for the question, no, I don't believe in god, or creationism.

 

[Uniden0]

I believe in God per say...I believe that in the end, the soul of the human being will be seperated from its sin and while the sin of the human goes to hell...The soul of the human goes to Heaven. That is my belief of course, I don't mean to press it on another .

 

[Demon]

Yes, I believe in God. Believing in God doesn't make one ignorant to facts, it's silly religious people who try to do that. I have faith in scientists as intelligent people, yada yada... and I'm also a theist.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

Sciences contradictions come through trial and error and are always open to debate, unlike the bible. The Vatican didnt spend a thousand years pillaging non-believers and prying into the private lives of everyone under its power to be told otherwise. It may or not be beyond our technology to understand where the universe came from or how it formed to begin with, doesn't mean we should be looking to a book written by men (and re-written numerous times making up rules as times and social norms dictate) for answers.

As for the question, no, I don't believe in god, or creationism.

Well, seeing how science has proved nothing as far as this , painfully so, even, I don't see the difference. Science is overrated. Most of it is purely theoretical. It's ignorant to believe far-fetched science over the plagues. That doesn't mean that the bible is true, I'm just saying, its ironic: the bible makes more sense than the ideas of natural mayhem lol. technically speaking// thats mathematically correct as far as probablilty.

Hell, they cant even prove that the Earth is more than 6000 years old_

 

[Beyer]

I am agnostic so I believe in the possibility of a God, but I do not believe in any one God.

Do I believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving God that I hear about a lot? No, I find that ridiculous considering the state the world is in and the things people have to go through.

I did, however, make up some sci-fi story based around God once that I actually considered to be a possible theory until I slapped myself across the face realising how silly it was.
I don't remember the details right now but it had something to do with God giving up control over the universe in order to create life or something about him creating something and giving it up and watch what happens which led to the creation of the universe. It was pretty crazy.

There are far too many questions in my head with few too many answers to believe in anything, hence my agnosticism.

 

[Jamesy]

Well, seeing how science has proved nothing as far as this , painfully so, even, I don't see the difference. Science is overrated. Most of it is purely theoretical. It's ignorant to believe far-fetched science over the plagues. That doesn't mean that the bible is true, I'm just saying, its ironic: the bible makes more sense than the ideas of natural mayhem lol. technically speaking// thats mathematically correct as far as probablilty.

Hell, they cant even prove that the Earth is more than 6000 years old_

What sense does the bible make of natural mayhem? Religion believed and believes natural disasters from biblical times to present are acts of God. Science can go into intricities Religion can't on why they happen.

Do you believe the Earth is less than 6000 years old? How, exactly, has science not proved it? The burden of proof rests on the shoulders of religion to prove otherwise, science has proved it, otherwise the facts wouldnt be released.

Next you'll be telling me the sun revolves around the earth and that the earth is flat.

Even if there was the god, the conduct of the various churches and monotheisic religions around the world would be embarrassing, unless God, ofcourse, doesn't give a shit.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

What sense does the bible make of natural mayhem? Religion believed and believes natural disasters from biblical times to present are acts of God. Science can go into intricities Religion can't on why they happen.

Do you believe the Earth is less than 6000 years old? How, exactly, has science not proved it? The burden of proof rests on the shoulders of religion to prove otherwise, science has proved it, otherwise the facts wouldnt be released.

Well about the world being less than 6000 years old, I don't deny either/or. All I said is that has not been proven. And it hasn't.
If you're referring to carbon dating and whatnot,, lemme tell you, its almost comical how people go on that and assume that the world is soooo old. See, even if it were true, which we aren't even sure, it still proves nothing. Carbon-14 depletes completely after 50000 years, as they say, but thats where the comical part comes in... we don't know how old it is unless we make it ourselves!! They have to work backwards on relative elements to determine a likeliness of it's age through half-life: which is a rough, inaccurate observation of radio-active decay in itself ANYWAYS_
It's almost painful, if you ask me, that people put so much blind faith into science (which can be observed) and ridicule theists (who can't observe).

Besides, unless you presume to say God made the elements of the universe brand-new and not already in age, then the whole idea is pointless anyways..

Science is really unstable. A lot of 'explanations' for happenings in the Bible are so far-fetched and ridiculously unlikely,, that when theists ignore such things, its usually not 'denial'- some scientists are just idiots.

 

[Harlequin]

The Vatican

Oh Catholicism? I see...

Because I thought you were referring to Christianity and Religion in general. Silly me.

Science can go into intricities Religion can't on why they happen.

Science and Religion are not polar opposites. Science is how we as humans quantify the natural realm, which means it's very much present in Religion and Philosophy. You've taken Science out of it's very own context, it's not yours nor anyone else's, it's a means, a medium. Science works in tandem with every other medium we as humans use to perceive the world around us.

Do you believe the Earth is less than 6000 years old? How, exactly, has science not proved it? The burden of proof rests on the shoulders of religion to prove otherwise, science has proved it, otherwise the facts wouldnt be released.

I'd advise you read the following post and restructure your argument:

http://www.finalfantasyforums.net/r...lisation-and-philosophy-43088.html#post805711

Even if there was the god, the conduct of the various churches and monotheisic religions around the world would be embarrassing, unless God, ofcourse, doesn't give a shit.

The problem lies in human nature, not religion.

 

[Jamesy]

Well about the world being less than 6000 years old, I don't deny either/or. All I said is that has not been proven. And it hasn't.
If you're referring to carbon dating and whatnot,, lemme tell you, its almost comical how people go on that and assume that the world is soooo old. See, even if it were true, which we aren't even sure, it still proves nothing. Carbon-14 depletes completely after 50000 years, as they say, but thats where the comical part comes in... we don't know how old it is unless we make it ourselves!! They have to work backwards on relative elements to determine a likeliness of it's age through half-life: which is a rough, inaccurate observation of radio-active decay in itself ANYWAYS_
It's almost painful, if you ask me, that people put so much blind faith into science (which can be observed) and ridicule theists (who can't observe).

Besides, unless you presume to say God made the elements of the universe brand-new and not already in age, then the whole idea is pointless anyways..

Science is really unstable. A lot of 'explanations' for happenings in the Bible are so far-fetched and ridiculously unlikely,, that when theists ignore such things, its usually not 'denial'- some scientists are just idiots.

Its been proven that the world is not less 6000 years old. Its a fact mate. 6000 years is an eyeblink in the timeline, considering humans have been wandering the earth for the best part of 90,000 years, and other forms of lesser evolved (but perfectly adaptable to their environment) humans for even longer.

If religious organisations are going to make absurd claims about the age of the earth and disregard everything else then the burden of proof is on those who believe it, not me, not a scientist, science has done its job in proving otherwise.

As far as carbon dating goes its not the only way to find the true age of the earth. Science is about patterns, shapes, sizes, what we can see and examine, measuring things by distance. Its pretty common knowledge that the universe expands, therefore the distance between the earth and those shiney things we can see in the sky is another way, just one of many. Lets not even get into examining the formation of rocks over millions of years.

You mentioned how religious folk will disregard some aspects of their doctrine; can't be that dedicated to it, can they? If you're going to follow a religion, you don't cherry pick. Also, how scientists are idiots exactly? They're clearly not lacking in intelligence. They might be a bit harsh in regards to religion, then again, their work contradicts gospel truth.

Oh Catholicism? I see...

Because I thought you were referring to Christianity and Religion in general. Silly me.



Science and Religion are not polar opposites. Science is how we as humans quantify the natural realm, which means it's very much present in Religion and Philosophy. You've taken Science out of it's very own context, it's not yours nor anyone else's, it's a means, a medium. Science works in tandem with every other medium we as humans use to perceive the world around us.



I'd advise you read the following post and restructure your argument:

http://www.finalfantasyforums.net/r...lisation-and-philosophy-43088.html#post805711



The problem lies in human nature, not religion.

Well considering catholicism is the largest denomination on earth and holds more beliefs with other christian denominations than they let on, its a decent enough example as far as I'm concerned.

Science and religion are opposites. They do not work hand in hand, they contradict each other on many things and find their "facts" in vastly different ways. One can be proven, the other has been written, rewritten, and revised to suit the needs and politics of the time. Unless I'm mistaken, I don't claim that science is "mine" or anyone elses, unlike religious organisations who claim my soul is the property of either god or the devil. Its nonsense. Science doesn't just percieve the world around us, it proves the world around us and why it exists as a physical entity, what is is made from, not on a spiritual level by any means. Religion tries, using its own doctrine based on the world of a man who apparently lived 2000 years ago, or if you are a muslim, 600 years ago. If you're a jew, then its even longer.

I had a wee gander at your link; I do need to revise my argument, however the basic concepts of it will always be the same; religion cannot prove the world is XX years old, whatever book you decide to indoctrinate yourself with, science can and has proven through multiple ways how old something is, be it a pile of bones, a tree, or the planet itself.

As far as religion goes, absolutely, it is a medium for those to convey their beliefs in a higher power; unlike general science which is not a medium, it is a working method to finding a simple proven truth, or at the very least, a theory based on evidence. Religion is not based on evidence, unless you want to claim it is?

You said "humans as we are lack the ability to know." Lets be honest here, we don't lack the ability, we invent the ability, and its certainly not through religious doctrine and gospel truths. Anytime religion has been found out throughout history its answer has been punishment.

 

[Demon]

Science and religion are opposites. They do not work hand in hand, they contradict each other on many things and find their "facts" in vastly different ways.

Science and religion are opposites because science is the explained, while religion generally covers aspects of the unexplained.

Am I right?

Now the problem is in proving that science and religion are mutually exclusive. Since religion is slowly becoming more open to the idea of evolution, I'd say that the two are not mutually exclusive.

But as a question, what do you think of scientists who are Christians?

 

[GalaxyFlare]

Now the problem is in proving that science and religion are mutually exclusive. Since religion is slowly becoming more open to the idea of evolution, I'd say that the two are not mutually exclusive.

Yes they are............of course they are, religion will aways take fact and manipulate it to there own ends, its just nowa days there is more evidence for disbelief in god than there is for belief and people will eventually turn aside the devotion because religion will become a laughing stock as it continues to claw at facts and change its ways to ensure the faithful remain so.

Uh duh! of course the earth is more than 6000 years old, goddamn bloody ridiculous statement, You know how wide the sun is? 1.3 million Kilometers about 1 million earth masses, in order for it maintain its static equilibrium it must burn 600million tonnes of raw hydrogen in its core......per second! This process has been going on for billions of years,
and the earth ecreted into its Spherical form over billions of years.

SO when you talking about the earth being created your really talking about the proto-plantetary disk the Earth and the other planets came from.......6000 lol it takes 100 times that long just so atmosphere can cling to the surface, You know what the earth was like 6000 years after its formation?: Hell, a place inhospitable to life............oh watch out they could use that as a creation myth for the Devil! crafty and sly them religious folks.

The universe is infinitely more complex than anyone human can possibly know, but I know of the origins of religion and they pale in comparison, laughably so, religion does have its good point though if we abide by the guidance it provides the world would not be in its current state............ready to tear its self apart.

A single creator deity, interesting concept, I think Gruj said even if this "creator" were mortal would we still worship them, I would think in contrast to the popular belief that any one capable of creating humanity from either perspective of evolution or as a thought they would not be bothered in trivialities of current human existence, they would have a higher priority than simply being worshipped or prayed too.

Despite appearances its not my place to say if believing is right or wrong, but I will be damned if Im gonna let any Religion take the efforts of science and use them to make themselves more prosperous, to increase there influence, Its just not gonna happen.

The other day I heard about the Astronomer to the Pope claiming the Pope would baptise
aliens lol.........claiming that "All living thing have soul" and that his holiness would "Gladly
consecrate them".........with all due respect your Holiness I dont think so!!You think any space faring species capable of collapsing a star need needs to be baptised.

True abuse of the sacramental wine.