Politics Do you believe in god?

[facade47]

Okay, since we're back on topic, I'd like to ask why do those who don't believe in God believe so, and those who do believe in God believe so.

 

[IsabellaOfSweden]

Okay, since we're back on topic, I'd like to ask why do those who don't believe in God believe so, and those who do believe in God believe so.

[post="1407922"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

I don't believe in god. I think there are too many proofs supporting the evolution theory. We are related to the monkeys. We can see that. Even though evolution can't be fully proven, god can't be proven even a little. I have read and studied alot about both evolution and religion, and evolution fascinate me. All these fossils, dna-mutations and billions of years of change.. the more I read, the more I am absolutely sure that is the how we were created. Everyone has different opinions and i see why some people believe in both god and evolution, but i'm too much of a scientist to believe in God.. there are no rooms for god in my theories..

other reasons why i don't believe in god is that I live in the country with the highest percentage of atheists in the world and also, my dad is a biologist. That might have affected me. I was never taught to believe in god. I believe the whole god thing to be a fairytale just like santa...

How about you? do you believe in god? why? why not?

 

[facade47]

I believe in God. One reason is because I believe in the Big Bang theory. Some kind of material had to be present for the bang to occur. I don't believe that the material was there for eternity; something had to have created it.

I believe in evolution. It is a wonderful and intricate process that, I believe, was created by God.

It seems to me like some coincidences are too good to be coincidences, and could only be attributed to God.

 

[sugababyboo]

This is a question for those who believe in God. I'm honestly not trying to offend you but this question came to me while watching Miracle on 34th Street.

If there were a book that was allegedly inspired or written by Santa Clause/tooth fairy/Sandman would you believe in him or her???

In the film, Kris Kringle's lawyer brought up the point that if people can believe in God without ever seeing him then why can't some believe that his client is Santa Clause.

 

[Jamison]

This is a question for those who believe in God.  I'm honestly not trying to offend you but this question came to me while watching Miracle on 34th Street.

If there was book that was allegedly inspired or written by Santa Clause/tooth fairy/Sandman would you believe in him or her???

In the film, Kris Kringle's lawyer brought up the point that if people can believe in God without ever seeing him then why can't some believe that his client is Santa Clause.

[post="1409916"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

I have always wondered that myself.

 

[noggi16]

No offence meant but

but i'm too much of a scientist to believe in God.. there are no rooms for god in my theories..

doesn't really wash. Eistein (and we all know what a scientist he was) said Science without religion is blind and religion without science is lame. and that when he looked at the universe, he saw God's hand. Surely that shows belief in science and relgion is not imcompatiable.

 

[AlohaSpy]

No offence meant but
doesn't really wash. Eistein (and we all know what a scientist he was) said Science without religion is blind and religion without science is lame. and that when he looked at the universe, he saw God's hand. Surely that shows belief in science and relgion is not imcompatiable.

[post="1410679"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

I agree. I think that religion helps fill in the blanks that science sometimes leaves, and vice-versa (sp?). Obviously there are certain things about religion and science that seem to contradict each other (ie the theory of evolution), but overall, the quest to understand one enriches your capacity to understand the other.

 

[sugababyboo]

I have always wondered that myself.

[post="1409948"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

Yet, I asked it, I did it first lol I kid. This question has been in my mind for awhile now.

 

[Julia08]

All though I don't go to Church every sunday, I still believe in some sort of divine being, god. Science explains what God doesn't and god explains what science doesn't. But god is in my life to guide me, and give me hope. Whether you believe in God, no matter if you believe in Christanity, Islam, or Judism we are all just people that need to stick together.

To All those who pray: Pray for the people in England!

 

[Jamison]

No offence meant but
doesn't really wash. Eistein (and we all know what a scientist he was) said Science without religion is blind and religion without science is lame. and that when he looked at the universe, he saw God's hand. Surely that shows belief in science and relgion is not imcompatiable.

[post="1410679"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

For some people it isn't incompatible, but for other's it is. I personally just finished watching a lovely dvd on the string theory and the big bang. Watching it made me reaffirm my belief in the fact that there is no God. My boyfriend, on the other hand, watched the same thing and to him it showed that there must be a God to have put all that into motion. We watched the same dvd, and both believe that a good portion of the things shown in the movie are true, yet I saw absolutely no place for God and my boyfriend saw that God started it all. It's all about interpretation.

And as far as Einstein goes, he also had these things to say about God and religion.

"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religion than it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism."

"I do not believe in the immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it."

"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for a reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed."

And several from this website: http://www.skeptic.com/archives50.html

Albert Einstein did talk about a God, but not a traditional one, and not really one he believed in. He even called himself an athiest.

"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being."

Does that mean that since Einstein said it, then it must be true?

 

[nancee]

This is a question for those who believe in God.  I'm honestly not trying to offend you but this question came to me while watching Miracle on 34th Street.

If there were a book that was allegedly inspired or written by Santa Clause/tooth fairy/Sandman would you believe in him or her???

In the film, Kris Kringle's lawyer brought up the point that if people can believe in God without ever seeing him then why can't some believe that his client is Santa Clause.

[post="1409916"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

I think Santa is a product of comercialization. Christmas is to celebrate the birth of Jesus, yet the market has changed it to a day in which people by lots of presents. For me, I don't not believe in Santa Clause cuz I have never seen him, but because it was just a way for industries to make money. Yeah, and then there is the argument that people made up God just to make themselves feel better; but yeah, that's why I don't believe in Santa.

I totally find it weird/cool that the more people dig into science, the surer they are that there is no god. The more I think about science, the stronger my belief and faith are. I was watching the Discovery channel ( yes I know I'm a nerd ) and they were talking about the human body. It is so complex and I just find the idea that it just happened out of chance. The way our mind works is so complicated; I just know that there had to be someone to start it all. Science doesn't really cancel out religion; although I believe in creationism (not necessarily the "six days" story), the idea of evolution doesn't bother me; maybe God put those animals there first, and then we started to develop; it sounds weird, but God is so complex it's hard to know. And the more I go to church, the more my faith is deepened also. It's hard to expain, but the feeling that someone is watching and loving me just grows and I know that God lives.

 

[jacs29]

It's all about interpretation.

Exactly! ^_^

 

[IsabellaOfSweden]

No offence meant but
doesn't really wash. Eistein (and we all know what a scientist he was) said Science without religion is blind and religion without science is lame. and that when he looked at the universe, he saw God's hand. Surely that shows belief in science and relgion is not imcompatiable.

[post="1410679"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

None taken

I didn't mean that science and god isn't compatible for other people.. just that it isn't for ME. I need proof to believe in something.. that's why god and science isn't compatible FOR ME.

 

[noggi16]

Albert Einstein did talk about a God, but not a traditional one, and not really one he believed in. He even called himself an athiest.

But the question isn't are you a Christian? or do you believe in a traditional god, the question was do you believe in a god, a higher power, an influence on the universe. And even if he didn't "believe" in it, he certainly saw evidence of it.

I didn't mean that science and god isn't compatible for other people.. just that it isn't for ME. I need proof to believe in something.. that's why god and science isn't compatible FOR ME.

Thats the crux of the arguement, I believe without seeing, there are some things which are an absolute truth, like God.

 

[Jamison]

I think Santa is a product of comercialization. Christmas is to celebrate the birth of Jesus, yet the market has changed it to a day in which people by lots of presents. For me, I don't not believe in Santa Clause cuz I have never seen him, but because it was just a way for industries to make money. Yeah, and then there is the argument that people made up God just to make themselves feel better; but yeah, that's why I don't believe in Santa.

I totally find it weird/cool that the more people dig into science, the surer they are that there is no god. The more I think about science, the stronger my belief and faith are. I was watching the  Discovery channel ( yes I know I'm a nerd ) and they were talking about the human body. It is so complex and I just find the idea that it just happened out of chance. The way our mind works is so complicated; I just know that there had to be someone to start it all. Science doesn't really cancel out religion; although I believe in creationism (not necessarily the "six days" story), the idea of evolution doesn't bother me; maybe God put those animals there first, and then we started to develop; it sounds weird, but God is so complex it's hard to know. And the more I go to church, the more my faith is deepened also. It's hard to expain, but the feeling that someone is watching and loving me just grows and I know that God lives.

[post="1411223"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

And I'm the exact opposite. I watch something on the Discovery Channel (like the string theory dvd I just watched) and it reaffirms my believe that there is no God. I agree with what Jai said a few pages back. It makes the world all that more special and amazing to me to think that if one tiny thing had been different at the big bang then we might never have existed.

 

[noggi16]

Instead of the fact that an ominipent and almighty being decided it would be that way?

 

[kellslawells]

^
To the scientists amongst us, yes.
I find it much more amazing that a single organism can adapt and change to suit its environement so much that, over thousands of years, it can change into something completely different. To me, THATS wonderful. I mean, i just find it incredible and amazing, and im glad to have evolved myself. I love the idea of having been a completely different organism, say the ape, millions of years ago.

 

[sugababyboo]

I just wanted to post this article that I got from the The NY Times

July 9, 2005
Leading Cardinal Redefines Church's View on Evolution
By CORNELIA DEAN and LAURIE GOODSTEIN

An influential cardinal in the Roman Catholic Church, which has long been regarded as an ally of the theory of evolution, is now suggesting that belief in evolution as accepted by science today may be incompatible with Catholic faith.

The cardinal, Christoph Schönborn, archbishop of Vienna, a theologian who is close to Pope Benedict XVI, staked out his position in an Op-Ed article in The New York Times on Thursday, writing, "Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not."

In a telephone interview from a monastery in Austria, where he was on retreat, the cardinal said that his essay had not been approved by the Vatican, but that two or three weeks before Pope Benedict XVI's election in April, he spoke with the pope, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, about the church's position on evolution. "I said I would like to have a more explicit statement about that, and he encouraged me to go on," said Cardinal Schönborn.

He said that he had been "angry" for years about writers and theologians, many Catholics, who he said had "misrepresented" the church's position as endorsing the idea of evolution as a random process.

Opponents of Darwinian evolution said they were gratified by Cardinal Schönborn's essay. But scientists and science teachers reacted with confusion, dismay and even anger. Some said they feared the cardinal's sentiments would cause religious scientists to question their faiths.

Cardinal Schönborn, who is on the Vatican's Congregation for Catholic Education, said the office had no plans to issue new guidance to teachers in Catholic schools on evolution. But he said he believed students in Catholic schools, and all schools, should be taught that evolution is just one of many theories. Many Catholic schools teach Darwinian evolution, in which accidental mutation and natural selection of the fittest organisms drive the history of life, as part of their science curriculum.

Darwinian evolution is the foundation of modern biology. While researchers may debate details of how the mechanism of evolution plays out, there is no credible scientific challenge to the underlying theory.

American Catholics and conservative evangelical Christians have been a potent united front in opposing abortion, stem cell research and euthanasia, but had parted company on the death penalty and the teaching of evolution. Cardinal Schönborn's essay and comments are an indication that the church may now enter the debate over evolution more forcefully on the side of those who oppose the teaching of evolution alone.

One of the strongest advocates of teaching alternatives to evolution is the Discovery Institute in Seattle, which promotes the idea, termed intelligent design, that the variety and complexity of life on earth cannot be explained except through the intervention of a designer of some sort.

Mark Ryland, a vice president of the institute, said in an interview that he had urged the cardinal to write the essay. Both Mr. Ryland and Cardinal Schönborn said that an essay in May in The Times about the compatibility of religion and evolutionary theory by Lawrence M. Krauss, a physicist at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, suggested to them that it was time to clarify the church's position on evolution.

The cardinal's essay was submitted to The Times by a Virginia public relations firm, Creative Response Concepts, which also represents the Discovery Institute.

Mr. Ryland, who said he knew the cardinal through the International Theological Institute in Gaming, Austria, where he is chancellor and Mr. Ryland is on the board, said supporters of intelligent design were "very excited" that a church leader had taken a position opposing Darwinian evolution. "It clarified that in some sense the Catholics aren't fine with it," he said.

Bruce Chapman, the institute's president, said the cardinal's essay "helps blunt the claims" that the church "has spoken on Darwinian evolution in a way that's supportive."

But some biologists and others said they read the essay as abandoning longstanding church support for evolutionary biology.

"How did the Discovery Institute talking points wind up in Vienna?" wondered Glenn Branch, deputy director of the National Center for Science Education, which advocates the teaching of evolution. "It really did look quite a bit as if Cardinal Schönborn had been reading their Web pages."

Mr. Ryland said the cardinal was well versed on these issues and had written the essay on his own.

Dr. Francis Collins, who headed the official American effort to decipher the human genome, and who describes himself as a Christian, though not a Catholic, said Cardinal Schönborn's essay looked like "a step in the wrong direction" and said he feared that it "may represent some backpedaling from what scientifically is a very compelling conclusion, especially now that we have the ability to study DNA."

"There is a deep and growing chasm between the scientific and the spiritual world views," he went on. "To the extent that the cardinal's essay makes believing scientists less and less comfortable inhabiting the middle ground, it is unfortunate. It makes me uneasy."

"Unguided," "unplanned," "random" and "natural" are all adjectives that biologists might apply to the process of evolution, said Dr. Kenneth R. Miller, a professor of biology at Brown and a Catholic. But even so, he said, evolution "can fall within God's providential plan." He added: "Science cannot rule it out. Science cannot speak on this."

Dr. Miller, whose book "Finding Darwin's God" describes his reconciliation of evolutionary theory with Christian faith, said the essay seemed to equate belief in evolution with disbelief in God. That is alarming, he said. "It may have the effect of convincing Catholics that evolution is something they should reject."

Dr. Collins and other scientists said they could understand why a cleric might want to make the case that, as Dr. Collins put it, "evolution is the mechanism by which human beings came into existence, but God had something to do with that, too." Dr. Collins said that view, theistic evolution, "is shared with a very large number of biologists who also believe in God, including me."

But it does not encompass the idea that the workings of evolution required the direct intervention of a supernatural agent, as intelligent design would have it.

In his essay, Cardinal Schönborn asserted that he was not trying to break new ground but to correct the idea, "often invoked," that the church accepts or at least acquiesces to the theory of evolution.

He referred to widely cited remarks by Pope John Paul II, who, in a 1996 address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, noted that the scientific case for evolution was growing stronger and that the theory was "more than a hypothesis."

In December, Bishop Francis X. DiLorenzo, chairman of the Committee on Science and Human Values of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, cited those remarks in writing to the nation's bishops that "the Church does not need to fear the teaching of evolution as long as it is understood as a scientific account of the physical origins and development of the universe." But in his essay, Cardinal Schönborn dismissed John Paul's statement as "rather vague and unimportant."

Francisco Ayala, a professor of biology at the University of California, Irvine, and a former Dominican priest, called this assessment "an insult" to the late pope and said the cardinal seemed to be drawing a line between the theory of evolution and religious faith, and "seeing a conflict that does not exist."

Dr. Miller said he was already hearing from people worried about the cardinal's essay. "People are saying, does the church really believe this?" He said he would not speculate. "John Paul II made it very clear that he regarded scientific rationality as a gift from God," Dr. Miller said, adding, "There are more than 100 cardinals and they often have conflicting opinions."

 

[mystery_chick]

Just to waddle in here because I'm kinda bored and kinda wanna see what this is about.

Thats the crux of the arguement, I believe without seeing, there are some things which are an absolute truth, like God.

[post="1412563"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

The thing is, God isn't absolute truth. God might be absolute truth to you, but not to me and things can't be absolute truth unless it's common in/to every human being in the world and even then it's not "absolute truth"

If you believe without seeing then do you believe that religion is all about blind faith? (sorry if you guys have addressed this before, my eyes won't be able to read through 44 pages) If you do think that religion is blind faith then you have let yourself believe in something that could be there or couldn't. I can't do that, I can't let myself dive into something without seeing. *shugs*


--Mandy

 

[sarks_princess]

I think Santa is a product of comercialization. Christmas is to celebrate the birth of Jesus, yet the market has changed it to a day in which people by lots of presents.

I know im going to throw a spanner in the works and this is slightly off topic but Christmas is not the birth of Jesus, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, at the time of Jesus's birth shepards with their sheep were roaming the country. Now, how could they do that if it is winter in the Northern Hemisphere in December. Secondly, when Jesus died on the cross in April (at Easter, which i dont dispute) he was 33 and a half so therefore based on this he would have to have been born around September/October at the end of Autumn.


Sorry i digressed, but i had to comment