Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your belief that god exists is faith. Disbelief takes no faith, but I don't expect you to understand that....The religious seldom do.
I was a christian for twenty years, and only stopped believing when I read and studied the bible. I saw it for what it was. I was just like all the other religions I studied...Just a bunch of stories. If there were actually one true god, then all religious beliefs would at least be similar don't you think?
There are many thousands of beliefs, most of them with little similarity to one another. How do you know you have chosen correctly, or did you choose at all?
Your belief that god exists is faith. Disbelief takes no faith, but I don't expect you to understand that....The religious seldom do.
I was a christian for twenty years, and only stopped believing when I read and studied the bible. I saw it for what it was. I was just like all the other religions I studied...Just a bunch of stories. If there were actually one true god, then all religious beliefs would at least be similar don't you think?
There are many thousands of beliefs, most of them with little similarity to one another. How do you know you have chosen correctly, or did you choose at all?
Yes, faith is a powerful principle, some think that is the power by which God creates worlds, first spiritually, then physically.
Disbelief is a choice not to believe even when there is a huge amount of evidence according to others, though not necessarily evidence yet detected by the tools and methods of science. You can choose to believe or disbelieve that there are stars beyond those detected by man at this time. Faith is believing in things (as yet) unseen. If you believe that there really are stars as yet undetected, you are exercising faith.
I'm sorry you lost your faith in God but pleased that He has given us the freedom to choose to believe in Him or not to believe.
It's true that the Old Testament in particular is a record of the Hebrews and perhaps not entirely pertinent to our time. The New Testament with its lifestyle teachings is much more pertinent to us today. There are also other scriptures, some of them other records of the Hebrews.
Keep in mind that most of the religious books we refer to today were originally written millennia ago and subjected to many different translations and interpretations. I would be surprised if they did not have some similarities, and I would be surprised if they all survived intact and understandable in the same manner to all people.
The writers were just fallible humans. And no doubt since Cain and Abel there have been apostates and unbelievers, some of whom no doubt successfully spread their message and created a variety of beliefs, doubts, and fables. That may be why God in His wisdom created "dispensations" of time and at the beginning of each restored the original pure doctrines and teachings. We are now in the final dispensation of time prior to, according to prophecies, this earth being burned by fire and once again entering a Garden of Eden paradisiacal state known to Christians as the "Millennium".
I made my final choice of Christian denomination in my early 20's after studying and experiencing quite a few religious denominations. I was brought up Roman Catholic and have been a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for decades. I am totally satisfied and content with my choice of denomination and I respect the choices others make as they journey through life and prepare for eternity.
"We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may." 11 Article of Faith, LDS Church
Sorry, I don't understand your "three big complains". Were you asking me to respond to three questions?
1. Subjectivity: Your personal views are not the only ones that exist on a science vs religion debate. There are thousands of religions who claim to be the only truth. Monotheistic, polytheist, pantheist you name it. Even within religions like Christianity there is a huge amount of conflict within sects. No matter who you listen to, your beliefs will conflict other religions which makes no sense considering every religion supposedly uses the same methods to find the truth. There is simply nothing that sets any of them apart.
2. Unreliability: Whole religions have been built upon excuses, preying on people who want to believe in things so badly they will ignore every failure that they come across. Even this forum has seen these things happen(and no doubt will in the future) with 100% failure rate.
3. Dogmatic: No explanation needed for this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by justamere10
Yes, so, what's your point? Are you claiming that the people who were most instrumental in bringing new knowledge to mankind are all people who do not believe in God? Is it possible that inspiration actually comes from God as He blesses and uplifts His children on earth?
Where the hell did you get this from my statement? I'm saying that religion is absolutely dogmatic and not open to new changes. If people(who may or may not believe in a god[s]) didn't challenge this authority then society would stagnate and there would be no progress on a social or scientific level.
Quote:
Originally Posted by justamere10
You choose to keep your mind firmly closed to the possibility that there may be more to man and the universe than just the things he can discern with his five senses.
You are talking to an apostate here so these comments go right through me. I've tried different religions in the past and they didn't cut it but I can become a believer if a powerful enough reason comes along.
Quote:
Originally Posted by justamere10
People who allow themselves more freedom know that the scientific method is the WRONG TOOL to use to get to know God!
How convenient. Are we to do this every time we don't like conclusions?
One last question. You said that science hasn't found god yet. Have you ever considered or do you now consider it possible that there simply isn't a god?
Yes, I did write that I am not learned enough to have what you call a "technical" discussion about the article I referred readers to.
But a quick skim of your message makes me wonder if you had the courage to click that "Mormon" link and actually read the entire article and footnotes before you attempted to critique it. Did you do so?
I had not read the article. You are correct, the article did try to address a slightly different version of the same tired old statistical argument.
Upon reading it, I can declare it to be tripe, and a complete waste of that portion of my life.
Again, the numbers are being rigged. Sure, some mutations arose in the bacteria. They began to digest lactose again. The article admits that the very same base pairs did not reappear, but others were coopted to take on their function. Then the article tries to say "wow, astronomical odds...therefore god"
Not so. Any number of genes could have switched on. There could have been regressive traits for digestion. Undoubtedly some baceria did starve. Others adapted.
What you have shown is proof of evolution. What the author of your article is trying to do is twist something, ignore many possibilities, and declare god.
Science 1, Religion 0, and religion has to sit in the penalty box for cheating.
1. Subjectivity: Your personal views are not the only ones that exist on a science vs religion debate. There are thousands of religions who claim to be the only truth. Monotheistic, polytheist, pantheist you name it. Even within religions like Christianity there is a huge amount of conflict within sects. No matter who you listen to, your beliefs will conflict other religions which makes no sense considering every religion supposedly uses the same methods to find the truth. There is simply nothing that sets any of them apart.
2. Unreliability: Whole religions have been built upon excuses, preying on people who want to believe in things so badly they will ignore every failure that they come across. Even this forum has seen these things happen(and no doubt will in the future) with 100% failure rate.
3. Dogmatic: No explanation needed for this.
4. Where the hell did you get this from my statement? I'm saying that religion is absolutely dogmatic and not open to new changes. If people(who may or may not believe in a god[s]) didn't challenge this authority then society would stagnate and there would be no progress on a social or scientific level.
5. You are talking to an apostate here so these comments go right through me. I've tried different religions in the past and they didn't cut it but I can become a believer if a powerful enough reason comes along.
6. How convenient. Are we to do this every time we don't like conclusions?
7. One last question. You said that science hasn't found god yet. Have you ever considered or do you now consider it possible that there simply isn't a god?
1. Apparently there are thousands of Christian denominations. It's probable that many of those denominations are founded on someone's or a group of scholars' interpretation of or emphasis on specific verses found in one or more of the books of the bible.
Anyone can start a church, at least in the USA, and call themselves, "pastor" "minister" "priest" "bishop" etc. so there's little wonder that there are many different names on many different church buildings.
But they probably all believe in God!
Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe that the original Church of Jesus Christ has been restored as prophesied in this the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times, once again on a foundation of revelation and living apostles and prophets, as it was anciently. The way I see it, that sets them apart!
2. In the USA people freely choose to affiliate with a church, or to leave one and join another, or to be a member of none at all. We're all subject to the consequences of our choices, most learn from their mistakes and move on. The church I choose to be a member of has not failed me, I am perfectly content to have many of my needs satisfied and desires fulfilled within that community. It's good to 'rub shoulders' with like-minded believers in God and Jesus Christ.
3. Some church leaders and pastors require that their members strictly adhere to certain beliefs (such as the teachings about the nature of God that emanated from the 4th century Nicene councils.) So yes, "dogma" exists, as do rules and regulations and policies and procedures in any organization. But again, people are free to choose to believe or not, and to remain or leave and go elsewhere if they are discontent, the same as with membership in any other organization in a free nation.
4. I think most churches have programs that evolve frequently to meet the needs of their members in an ever-changing environment. People who believe in continuing revelation from God do have ongoing guidance for our time. But truth is truth, God's commandment to not commit adultery or fornication for example has not been rescinded by Him even though it seems a popular thing to do right now. So yes, that teaching could be called "dogmatic".
5. If you are waiting for "reason" to lead you to God, you may have a long wait. Spirituality and belief in God does not rely on "reason" (the intellect) to make itself manifest to us. In addition to reason (the faculty we use to crunch data, compare it with known data within our experience or learning and reach conclusions) human beings have other faculties and means of discovery that lead us to God and subsequent membership in churches with like-minded members.
6. I repeat, the scientific method is THE WRONG TOOL to apply if you are seeking to discover God. It's quite possible that science will never discover God even though He has been known to appear to man, and Jesus Christ and ministering angels often do. The five senses and empirical methods of discovery are simply not adequate for such a search, they fail to find or at least to acknowledge (except perhaps at the water cooler where groups of scientists gather) things beyond their own limitations.
7. I would consider it more possible that there is no sun in the sky than that there is no God. I KNOW that God lives based on my own personal experience during this lifetime. But I acknowledge that some people choose to limit themselves to the physical world that the five senses open up to them. That's ok, God gives us all the freedom to CHOOSE...
You may not like my posts coos, but that's how I see it.
Last edited by justamere10; 08-27-2009 at 09:02 AM..
Yes, faith is a powerful principle, some think that is the power by which God creates worlds, first spiritually, then physically.
You can see the inherent problem here right? If faith is the power by which God uses to create worlds, then how did the world arrive in the first place? The world needed to be there, with people on it with faith in God for him to create. Furthermore, if God needs such power from an outside force, then he isn't omnipotent is he?
Quote:
Originally Posted by justamere10
Disbelief is a choice not to believe even when there is a huge amount of evidence according to others, though not necessarily evidence yet detected by the tools and methods of science.
That is not evidence, that is rumors. People say alot of things that aren't true. Again, you are confusing disbelief for a lack of evidence. For athiests, there is no choice to disbelieve, because there isn't any evidence of a God in the first place. You can't make a conscious choice to disbelieve evidence that isn't there in the first place. Maybe we should be discussing what exactly constitutes evidence!
Quote:
Originally Posted by justamere10
You can choose to believe or disbelieve that there are stars beyond those detected by man at this time. Faith is believing in things (as yet) unseen. If you believe that there really are stars as yet undetected, you are exercising faith.
Once again you are confusing terms: this time faith with coming to a conclusion by reasoning. We know stars exist (empirical evidence for this). We know that the universe is very, very, VERY big. We know that light can only travel a a certain speed. Therefore, we can PREDICT that stars might exist far enough away that their light hasn't reached us yet.
Faith has nothing to do with this, it is a prediction and not a conclusion. As someone making this prediction, I also have to admit that I may not know about certain aspects of the system that would make my reasoning (and ultimately by prediction) false. Faith would simply be saying there HAS to be stars out there whose light have not reached us yet. The possibility exists that there are not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by justamere10
I made my final choice of Christian denomination in my early 20's after studying and experiencing quite a few religious denominations. I was brought up Roman Catholic and have been a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for decades. I am totally satisfied and content with my choice of denomination and I respect the choices others make as they journey through life and prepare for eternity.
Yeah, people always SAY they respect the choices and belief/lack of belief of others, but their actions always seem to say different. I think that is just human nature unfortunately...
I had not read the article. You are correct, the article did try to address a slightly different version of the same tired old statistical argument....
What you have shown is proof of evolution. What the author of your article is trying to do is twist something, ignore many possibilities, and declare god.
Science 1, Religion 0, and religion has to sit in the penalty box for cheating.
You have expressed your opinion.
It may surprise you to know that many Mormons actually believe in evolution within species, including probably most of the I suppose thousands or even tens of thousands of scientists who happen to be members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
There was no game in play. Science has its place and Religion has its place, both useful to human beings during our mortal experience, with the latter continuing on after death.
Last edited by justamere10; 08-27-2009 at 09:07 AM..
1. You can see the inherent problem here right? If faith is the power by which God uses to create worlds, then how did the world arrive in the first place? The world needed to be there, with people on it with faith in God for him to create. Furthermore, if God needs such power from an outside force, then he isn't omnipotent is he?
2. That is not evidence, that is rumors. People say alot of things that aren't true. Again, you are confusing disbelief for a lack of evidence. For athiests, there is no choice to disbelieve, because there isn't any evidence of a God in the first place. You can't make a conscious choice to disbelieve evidence that isn't there in the first place. Maybe we should be discussing what exactly constitutes evidence!
3. Once again you are confusing terms: this time faith with coming to a conclusion by reasoning. We know stars exist (empirical evidence for this). We know that the universe is very, very, VERY big. We know that light can only travel a a certain speed. Therefore, we can PREDICT that stars might exist far enough away that their light hasn't reached us yet.
4. Faith has nothing to do with this, it is a prediction and not a conclusion. As someone making this prediction, I also have to admit that I may not know about certain aspects of the system that would make my reasoning (and ultimately by prediction) false. Faith would simply be saying there HAS to be stars out there whose light have not reached us yet. The possibility exists that there are not.
5. Yeah, people always SAY they respect the choices and belief/lack of belief of others, but their actions always seem to say different. I think that is just human nature unfortunately...
1. Why does faith have to be "an outside force" external to God? Whatever 'tools' and delegated authority He used to do it, it is my belief that it was God who created/organized this planet and the lights we see in the sky. He also created/organized the spirit bodies that inhabit the physical tabernacles humans create, that's why He is our Heavenly Father.
2. For atheists there is no "evidence" that God lives because they limit themselves to the five senses. Those five senses, in my opinion, were given us to gather information about our physical environment. We were given other faculties with which to know God and things of the spirit.
3. Those who believe in God tend to use the word "prophesy" more frequently than "predict" but whatever, it is an act of faith to believe in things that are as yet undetected. If a scientist didn't have more faith that a certain hypothesis was more correct than another he/she wouldn't start trying to prove that one correct before working on the other if the first one fails to produce. Just words, and choices. In the minds of probably most westerners who believe in God, Science and Religion are both helpful, I for one certainly think so.
4. Gotta move on to other things my five senses are calling me to, see comments in 3.
5. I guess I'm among the exceptions then. I do respect your choice to not believe in God, that's entirely up to you. But most people believe in God. Fortunately (from my point of view because I know He exists) it seems to be human nature to do so...
Last edited by justamere10; 08-27-2009 at 09:35 AM..
Again, you show your lack of understanding of how science works. It is not a question of which possible theory looks statistically more likely. It is a question of testing theories to devise ways of showing which is the correct one, and if you can't do that it remains only a theory (in the sense of hypothesis).
Quote:
We were given other faculties with which to know God and things of the spirit.
This is imagination and the evidence is that imagination comes up with irreconcilable imaginings. Prefence - selecting this one or that on without a sliver of supportive evidence is mere self - delusion. It is pathetic and slightly disgusting that you seem to regard that as some higher faculty than those which, we can convincingly show, collates empirically verifiable data.
Until you understand that what does not have some reasonably convincing supportive evidence can only be regarded as a possibility, you will never understand why religious faith and science can never be put on the same level or reliability.
Quote:
it is my belief that it was God who created/organized this planet and the lights we see in the sky. He also created/organized the spirit bodies that inhabit the physical tabernacles humans create
Your beliefs are worth precisely nothing. Where is there any decent modicum of evidence?
You will never understand why all the speculations about God making lights or putting souls in human tabernacles are so much speculative hogwash. You will never be able to discuss with any degree of credibility and you will continually fail to understand why your arguments can never be regarded with much more than amusement. Sorry to mock, I think you try to be reasonable but you can't because you are shut in a hard little shell of unreason. We have to use something heavy to try to break you out.
Quote:
. But most people believe in God.
A fallacy of numbers. And I don't mean that most people don't believe in God (by which you mean Christergod) and even less believe in the Mormon stuff. I mean that, even if an overwhelmimg majority of people believe in a particular god - without any good supportive evidence - it would not be proof of the existence of that god.
Though if so many believe the same thing that might be some sort of evidence for some kind of super sensory input. In fact, people believe all sorts of different things, so that argument is a total non - starter.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-27-2009 at 09:23 AM..
Disbelief is a choice not to believe even when there is a huge amount of evidence according to others, though not necessarily evidence yet detected by the tools and methods of science.
It's more than that - it's "evidence" that by definition is not sharable between people. When you rely on someone else's personal revelation, there's absolutely no way to confirm that the experience happened or is being relayed to you accurately.
I insist that I know for sure that you are completely wrong about your entire set of posts in this thread, and I determined this using revelation via something other than my 5 sense. Are you going to immediately change your mind? Hopefully not - no rational person would change strongly held beliefs based on another person hearing voices or something like that. And this approach doesn't take faith (in the religious sense) - there's lots of evidence that spiritual "observation" is at best a pretty imprecise way of generating knowledge.
After all, you reject the personal revelation of billions of people no matter what religion you choose. People who reject revelation as a way of getting knowledge are just being consistent in applying it across the board instead of accepting or rejecting it based on what they wish were true.
Quote:
You can choose to believe or disbelieve that there are stars beyond those detected by man at this time. Faith is believing in things (as yet) unseen. If you believe that there really are stars as yet undetected, you are exercising faith.
In a way totally unrelated to the faith that the religious use when talking about god, of course. We've observed stars, we have an understanding of why some might not be observed now due to technical limitations that might change in the future, and we're now able to observe stars which we haven't seen in the past. It takes faith in the fact that the universe isn't going to magically change how it works overnight to think that there's a good chance that as technology improves, we'll be able to observe more. But you won't get far in life without that assumption, religious or not.
In contrast, the faith you have in god is something you believe without or despite the evidence. There's no comparison.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
