What do you Believe??? (Religion)

[Zguy28]

2 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

The natural world doesn't have nail holes.

No, but your Savior does. You know the truth. Dark nights of the soul can be agonizing. I have suffered it myself, yet also experienced intense spiritual times of refreshing. Even Mother Teresa doubted, and yet persevered.

[AsburySkinsFan]

14 minutes ago, Zguy28 said:

No, but your Savior does. You know the truth. Dark nights of the soul can be agonizing. I have suffered it myself, yet also experienced intense spiritual times of refreshing. Even Mother Teresa doubted, and yet persevered.

I always figured a dark night would be agonizing...this is just the opposite. I'm actually more at peace now than ever. 

[HOF44]

I’ve never understood why if something as grand as the universe MUST have a creator then why can an entity capable of creating it just have always existed?? Couldn’t the universe just always existed??

[CousinsCowgirl84]

19 minutes ago, HOF44 said:

I’ve never understood why if something as grand as the universe MUST have a creator then why can an entity capable of creating it just have always existed?? Couldn’t the universe just always existed??

 

Because, He is.

[Renegade7]

1 hour ago, HOF44 said:

I’ve never understood why if something as grand as the universe MUST have a creator then why can an entity capable of creating it just have always existed?? Couldn’t the universe just always existed??

Yea, it's already been established in this thread that requiring a logical explanation for everything negates the very essence of faith.  Our nature won't accept "I don't know", but as big bang theory evolves into inflation and beyond, gotta wonder if we are asking wrong questions about where we land in it all.

[DCSaints_fan]

4 hours ago, twa said:

 

"A house implies a builder, and a garment a weaver, and a door a carpenter, so does the existence of the Universe imply a Creator."  -Akiba

 

What would a universe look like that didn't require a creator? 

 

[Renegade7]

32 minutes ago, DCSaints_fan said:

 

What would a universe look like that didn't require a creator? 

 

 

Depends on if one believes the laws of physics in their need for exactness spontaneously popped into existence.  Would these laws need to already be in effect during inflation in order for inflation to occur?

[AsburySkinsFan]

6 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

Because, He is.

Just so you know, that's not nearly as clever or as convincing as you want it to be.

[London Kev]

19 hours ago, superozman said:

 

For me (I believe in God, attend a protestant church 2-3x a month), I understand a lot of times things boil down to science vs God or give me evidence or i don't believe.  Absolutely understand and think that is acceptable.  So me telling you how I feel, isn't providing evidence, however, my reasoning - and where i agree or don't. :).

 

Evidence - I'm not sure anyone can provide evidence, but for me, just an explanation of why I believe.  I look around at how everything works, on this earth, with all beings (human, animal, etc) and just believe there has to be some form of intelligent design.  You hear in scientific documentaries or read in articles, "If the earth was this many degrees off", "if we were x amount closer (farther) to (from the) sun we wouldn't be here".  To me, there has to be something there that orchestrated that.  Also, how everything works together on the earth, that wouldn't be here if we weren't in the perfect spot.  That's my believe.

 

Apologies in responding "to you", but I felt it answered OP and also engaged someone

 

Religion good or bad - First, i'll limit to my religion Protestant (also include Catholic).  Second, I will state out right that there are bad people that are within these religions, exemplified by the Catholic Priest issue.  However, I think religions and religious people are key to our social fabric.  Religious institutions not only provide citizens with a place to go to become better people on a frequent basis, but also it teaches people to abide by principals that are inherently good.  A good example of this is from "Angels and Demons" movie where Commander Richter states to Langdon:  "My church comforts the sick and dying. My church feeds the poor. What does your church do, Mr. Langdon? That's right. You don't have one."  Now while it's a movie quote, I get the premise of the quote.  I also know people do inherently good things without a church.  However, I believe we are better off with those in our social hierarchy.

 

 

No apology needed for responding. I've probably thought more about God and religion in the past few months than I have in my entire life, so any extra viewpoints are welcome.

 

Regarding actual evidence, I just can't accept that the universe actually needs a creator. I think that the big bang model seems to describe the formation of the universe fairly well, and the prediction it made about the temperature of the microwave background radiation provides good supporting evidence for me.

I do have some reservations regarding the early inflationary period, but think that it's a good theory going forward.

 

I also think that the anthropic principle helps explain why the laws of physics are the way they are, because if they were different, then we probably wouldn't have evolved to a point where we could even ask the question.

 

None of this actually excludes a God from kick-starting the big bang, but it also doesn't exclude anything else from kick-starting it either, so why choose a God as the explanation? Also, why choose any one particular God over all of the other Gods that may be the creator?

 

As far as religion goes, I'm not sure what I think. On one hand, I do get the social benefits for belonging to a group of like-minded people and many religions do do good work in their own communities and throughout the world.

Non-religious groups can also function in the same way and often tackle more ethical problems (I'm thinking gay-rights, equal rights for women, etc).

 

The downside with religion IMO is their almost cultish nature. If you believe, then you will be rewarded in "the next life" If you don't believe then you will burn in hell for eternity! Telling this story to young, impressionable children smacks of indoctrination to me. Also it's questionable the way people can be ostracised from their church and family for not believing.

 

As far as morals go, I have to wonder what is more moral; treating other people with respect and equality because you think that it's the right thing to do, or treating people the way that a God tells you to. The bible seems to have some very questionable views on homosexuality, equality, slavery and punishment, so I think that blindly following the word of God would actually be very immoral indeed.

 

Just one final word on evidence. I said in my earlier post that I wouldn't know what kind of evidence would convince me of the existence of a God. But surely an all-knowing, maximally-powerful God would  know what kind of evidence would convince everybody of it's existence. And yet all we have are old books by unknown authors, written in old languages, translated and added to, that are ambiguous at best, but often confusing and contradictory.

 

Even if I were to decide that a God is the most likely, probable cause of the universe and everything in it, how exactly could I decide which God (or Gods) actually did the creating?

 

It seems like there have been thousands of different Gods throughout human history, and I believe in one less than you.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

2 hours ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Just so you know, that's not nearly as clever or as convincing as you want it to be.

 

Loaded with a lot of assumptions. Also, thanks for ****ting on my saturday.

 

 

I was providing The Answer to a question.  The question makes assumptions, so must The Answer.

 

Edited April 6, 2019 by CousinsCowgirl84

[AsburySkinsFan]

20 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

Loaded with a lot of assumptions. Also, thanks for ****ting on my saturday.

 

I was providing The Answer to a question.  The question makes assumptions, so must The Answer.

 

If you would like a safe space for your feelings I suggest not posting things on the internet.

 

Also, answering a question with what is the equivalent of "Because the Bible tells me so" is not going to convince many outside of a third grade Sunday School class.

[AsburySkinsFan]

21 hours ago, superozman said:

Religious institutions not only provide citizens with a place to go to become better people on a frequent basis, but also it teaches people to abide by principals that are inherently good.  A good example of this is from "Angels and Demons" movie where Commander Richter states to Langdon:  "My church comforts the sick and dying. My church feeds the poor. What does your church do, Mr. Langdon? That's right. You don't have one."  Now while it's a movie quote, I get the premise of the quote.  I also know people do inherently good things without a church.  However, I believe we are better off with those in our social hierarchy.

 

 

It's interesting because as I sit here in a personal time of post-faith I watched that same movie this weekend, and Langdon was robbed by the script writers (or he bit his tongue) fron the immediate retort that his "church" is science which has provided much of the ability to heal the sick in those religious hospitals. Biological science that was fought against by the church in favor of doctrinal statements about sickness demons rather than microbes and DNA, but now the church gets to claim the fruit of the science they fought and then claim the credit as evidence of the divine.

But, that wasn't the point of the movie, and Langdon was trying to catch a killer.

[Corcaigh]

Stephen Fry on the subject:

 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

49 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

I

Also, answering a question with what is the equivalent of "Because the Bible tells me so"

 

Thats not not what I did... a gave an answer based on a series of assumptions and you made a lot of assumptions in your response.

 

 

49 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

 

is not going to convince many outside of a third grade Sunday School class.

 

Factually incorrect.

 

 

 

 

[AsburySkinsFan]

1 minute ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

Thats not not what I did... a gave an answer based on a series of assumptions and you made a lot of assumptions in your response.

 

 

 

Factually incorrect.

 

Oh yeah, you're right there are a lot of people easily convinced, CBD, flat earthers, anti-vaxxers, essential oils and QVC are proof of that.

 

As for your previous question, that was a kindergarden question. 

 

For the record, the reason most people belong to those religions is because of their parents and their culture, not because they've been convinced through sound reasoning.

Ask me how I know...please

[LD0506]

11 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Oh yeah, you're right there are a lot of people easily convinced, CBD, flat earthers, anti-vaxxers, essential oils and QVC are proof of that.

 

As for your previous question, that was a kindergarden question. 

 

For the record, the reason most people belong to those religions is because of their parents and their culture, not because they've been convinced through sound reasoning.

Ask me how I know...please

 

Seriously? Talk about tilting at windmills..................

 

There are conversations where you reach a point that you just have to step off, let it go. You're never going to change someone's mind

[CousinsCowgirl84]

39 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

not because they've been convinced through sound reasoning.

 

Hmm, so... I agree with me?

[TradeTheBeal!]

Amused by the fact that Cowgirl has been filling up the music thread with clips from the band Ghost.  Which is probably the most overtly Satanic act to hit the mainstream since 80s-era Slayer.

Edited April 6, 2019 by TryTheBeal!

[CousinsCowgirl84]

I never claimed I was religious...  @AsburySkinsFan decided I was.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

19 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

I've avoided responding to @Sacks 'n' Stuff regarding if we would've made it this far as a civilization without religion.

I don’t remember. What did I say?

2 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Hmm, so... I agree with me?

And you’re both wrong 🙂

[CousinsCowgirl84]

3 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

 

And you’re both wrong 🙂

 

 

Most of the time...

[PeterMP]

3 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

Thats not not what I did... a gave an answer based on a series of assumptions and you made a lot of assumptions in your response.

 

 

 

Factually incorrect.

 

Do you think most people believe in God because the Bible said so?

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

Ok once again, this argument makes no sense...

 

”The world around me is too amazing to come from nothing. It had to come from something even more amazing... that I can’t see... that came from nothing.”

Edited April 6, 2019 by Sacks 'n' Stuff

[No Excuses]

15 hours ago, Zguy28 said:

Ok. In your counter argument, what is "good"? As in good vs. evil or moral vs immoral? When you accept the existence of goodness, you must affirm a moral law on the basis of which to judge between good and evil. But when you admit to a moral law, you must admit that there is a moral lawgiver. The moral lawgiver is God. If it is not, and it is humanity itself that gives the moral law (as you and many others here obviously believe), then it is completely subjective and who are you to say your opponent is wrong/bad/evil?

 

Morals have never been practiced objectively in the history of humanity and have always evolved with time so ascribing objectivity to them really doesn't accomplish anything in the grand scheme of things. Even within Christianity, you have differing views of moral right and wrong. Ascribing this to a moral lawgiver, creating a veneer of objectivity, really does not mean much when the practice of these morals is always subjective and if anything, evolves to the subjective culture of the current time.

 

The only difference is that I acknowledge the subjectivity of my morals, where as religions slap on objectivity to moral values, that themselves are subjective.

 

Ascribing morals to a moral lawgiver, God, is also perhaps the laziest and most arbitrary form of developing moral values.

 

To answer your question, even with subjective morals, we have reliable measures of human happiness and freedom, and quite honestly,  these measures are central to the fact that we do not live in a theocratic society, where law and social order is not derived from so called "objective" morals and our laws are able to evolve over time to respond to evolution of social human values. By almost every measure, social or economic, societies based on subjective values that evolve over time, rather than theocratic systems, are happier, more stable and capable of providing an objectively higher quality of life for its people.

 

Labeling homosexuality for instance as a sin based on a moral lawgiver tells us nothing about why it is wrong, why it should be penalized and why humans should not engage in this practice, except that God says so. I suppose this is why we heard bogus arguments such as homosexuals will ruin the sanctity of marriage and result in greater instability of human relationships. We know that data does not support any logical argument that homosexuality is bad for human society.

 

In the objective theocratic view, homosexuality is wrong for society, data and facts be damned, because "God" said so. Yet, human societies that have decriminalized homosexuality and legalized gay marriage, rate higher on indexes of human happiness, creativity and freedom of the individual person.

 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

20 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Do you think most people believe in God because the Bible said so?

 

@AsburySkinsFan said that, so you’d have to ask him.

 

I think people believe what they believe because they want to believe it.

Edited April 6, 2019 by CousinsCowgirl84