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.
Folks as I understand the original question has nothing to do with organized religion,it does not ask if you have a belief in Jesus Christ or any other Prophet it merely asks if you have a belief in a Creator, it doesn't ask how you worship him/her what ever your belief may be. I was brought up to believe in a Creator, so I guess this means I'm not an atheist, but neither am I a Christian, Jew, or Muslim. My evidence to me, that there is a Creator, is that I just look around me, I don't need the sciences to explain to me that this is how an acorn becomes a tree, or how all living things have come into existence because everything had to start somewhere, in my culture our Creator has provided us with all of our daily essentials and has showed us how to live in peace and harmony with it. This is how I know my Creator exists.
I doubt it, seeing that the author of The Gospel According to Luke - Luke, was a Doctor.
In fact, I'd go the other extreme and say that modern medicine came about FROM the compassion that Christianity teaches for the suffering. The problem as I see it, comes when we try to substitute and trust alone in "medicine" for "The truth of the Gospel" which is that this world is temporal and death is nothing to be afraid of.
Couple quotes: "Over two millennia, Christian doctors and nurses, inspired by the example and teaching of Jesus of Nazareth, have been at the forefront of efforts to alleviate human suffering, cure disease, and advance knowledge and understanding. Rosie Beal-Preston examines how the Christian Church has played a major role in developing and shaping the practice of Medicine."
"Before Christianity emerged, there were several hospital-like centres in Buddhist regions. The ancient Greeks practised a very simple form of medicine and Greek temples included places where the sick could sleep and receive help. The Romans are believed to have established some military hospitals. However, it was the Christians of the Roman Empire who began to change society's attitude to the sick, disabled and dying, by their radically different outlook."
A link where they came from if you care to read some more.
An interesting article, but an extremely biased one.
For example, here is how it acknowledges non-christian influences on medical progress:
Quote:
Many early GPs were religious men, and non-believers often unconsciously continued to follow the prevailing general principles of Christian ethics...
I find it rather underhanded to simply claim all acts of compassion as being Christian acts. While you can argue that it is part of the religion, it is also a part of most ethical systems. You could just as accurately claim laws against thievery as Christian acts. Sure, it fits the religious teachings, as well as those of practically every legal system ever made.
There are several rather dubious claims that basically amount to claiming that Christianity was responsible whenever a society with Christian influences did something useful to the field. At best it is an extreme oversimplification.
While the rise of Christianity did historically increase the number of hospitals, simply writing off the contributions of earlier societies is deceptive at best.
For example, the Hippocratic Oath has its origins in ancient greece.
There have been a lot of notable people who have aided the cause of medicine in the past, many of whom were Christian, and many others who were not.
In any case, this sidenote takes us somewhat off the track of my post. After all, I was only pointing out the penicillin example of the value of looking at things scientifically as opposed to inventing supernatural explanations.
Here is something a little more even handed regarding religion's impact on science in a historical context:
It is far from a cut and dry issue for the most part, and there have been instances where conflict has arisen, and instances where it has not.
In any case you look at though, faith based reasoning isn't what moves science forward. Scientific progress has always been a result of looking at these sorts of questions and trying to figure out what is going on based on the evidence rather than reaching for the simplistic "miracle" explanation. It doesn't matter what religion the scientist believes in. It matters what sort of reasoning which is being used.
At best, faith based reasoning just coexists with scientific reasoning. At worst, it gets in the way, and there are some rather famous examples of it doing so.
I'm not an aethiest, but seeing the Christian right collaborate with the rich and greedy and powerful in the Republican Party gives me reason to question the existance of God.
Thinking to the Sheep and Goats parable in the bible or the story of the man who wanted to follow Christ but could not give up his possessions, I don't see how the same party that allows oil profits to skyrocket can also be representative of God.
In addition, the Gospel of prosperity? Televangelists wearing $1000 suits in giant expensive churches? It does question a belief in God. Or at least the God they speak of.
Because they blame christians for a recent attack and the hindu reply with attacks.
But the thing is they attack like alot of other religions do people from the same religion that had nothing to do with one own irresponsibility for the attack
History, this is unfortunately too typical. Christians initiating something then calling foul when the behavior turns back on them.
I have no reason to believe in a god, any god. None can be proved or disproved. I choose to live on the side of rational actions and cause and effect. As MReidl so aptly posted upthread, you cannot prove a negative. And I have never seen proof of any god thing in my rather long life filled with many wondrous experiences.
I think you completely misunderstood my post. I'll rephrase and clarify.
Evolution and God or a creator are not mutually exclusive. Belief in a creator does not infer belief in the God of Abraham. Belief in a creator does not guarantee that the creator has any interest in the outcome of our universe.
My analogy with the monkey writing Shakespeare was not to suggest that humans magically appeared, but illustrate my belief in the universe having a creator. I don't believe that our universe is the result of a random event, just as I would not believe that one of the works of Shakespeare was the result of a monkey banging away at a keyboard. But at the same time I think it's entirely possible, even if I believe it's not probable.
Ok I re-read your post. Sorry to jump to conclusions. I've heard the monkeys banging away at a typewriter argument about, oh, one thousand times so I kind of jumped the gun a bit. You are correct though. An understanding or acceptance of evolution and god are not mutually exclusive items.
The same thing could be said about a nation. Am I part of a nation when I do not recognise one? People call me Dutch because that is my nationality and I have the documents to prove I am. But what if I do not consider myself Dutch? What if I loose all the 'official' documents, am I then suddenly not Dutch anymore?
Religions, nations, families, they are all the same to me. They are all notions to differentiate between your own 'group' and the others (strangers). Often this way of thinking promotes a distrust of the other. I just don't believe in this 'fear' of the 'other'. But it is a fact that we 'need' the other to know the self. It is a fact that I am not you and you are not me, but we are both human.
Originally Posted by chielgirlThe same thing could be said about a nation. Am I part of a nation when I do not recognise one? People call me Dutch because that is my nationality and I have the documents to prove I am. But what if I do not consider myself Dutch? What if I loose all the 'official' documents, am I then suddenly not Dutch anymore?
Religions, nations, families, they are all the same to me. They are all notions to differentiate between your own 'group' and the others (strangers). Often this way of thinking promotes a distrust of the other. I just don't believe in this 'fear' of the 'other'. But it is a fact that we 'need' the other to know the self. It is a fact that I am not you and you are not me, but we are both human.
The difference is that we have a lot of evidence that nations exist. We can travel there, we can see pictures of them, eat their foods, etc... etc... The only thing that is evidence for people who believe in God is their mere faith in God. In other words, the sun, moon, earth, universe, everything is so incredulous to so many people that they assume there must be some sort of omnipotent force at work doing it. I'm just not that impressed when I really boil it down. Well, I am, but I'm not so impressed I find the need to attribute these sorts of things to a deity. To say otherwise is just a flat out argument of incredulity.
We can travel there, we can see pictures of them, eat their foods, etc... etc...
This is not physical evidence of a nation. National borders are not a real division; they only exist in the mind.
Nothing short of a believer will stop me from crossing a national border. The division of the Hutu's and Tutsi's in Rwanda was not real either, but 'ethnicity' became a big enough issue to kill for. The same way believers thought it was completely justified to kill off the heathens.
Last edited by Tricky D; 01-08-2008 at 04:12 AM..
Reason: clarification
That was my point.
But through their believers gods become reality. Knowing this, can you still say that gods do not exist?
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.
Religions, nations, families, they are all the same to me. They are all notions to differentiate between your own 'group' and the others (strangers). Often this way of thinking promotes a distrust of the other. 
I just don't believe in this 'fear' of the 'other'. But it is a fact that we 'need' the other to know the self. It is a fact that I am not you and you are not me, but we are both human.
This is not physical evidence of a nation. National borders are not a real division; they only exist in the mind. 
The division of the Hutu's and Tutsi's in Rwanda was not real either, but 'ethnicity' became a big enough issue to kill for. The same way believers thought it was completely justified to kill off the heathens.
Knowing this, can you still say that gods do not exist?