2010-05-14, 20:22 | Link #2461 | ||
廉頗
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Massachusetts
Age: 34
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
2010-05-14, 20:30 | Link #2462 |
Banned
|
I'm agnostic now, but I was raised Christian. In time, once I got out into the world, I realized how close-minded I had been brought up, and realized all the things that I was told were lies or were wrong... weren't bad at all. Like gays were evil and sinful, but I learned later were just people who felt differently. I had a real hard time believing what they were doing was wrong. And if they were just people doing things that harmed no one... I had to question everything I was brought up to believe.
I don't know if there is a God. If there is one, then he gave me my logical mind, and thus expects me to use it. It's not logical to believe someone is "bad" just because they are different than I am. As far as judging God... if there is one and he created us, then he gave us the morals we have. The Bible says he created man in his image, and we have knowledge of Good and Evil thanks to Adam eating an apple. God said we'd be like him totally if Adam ate from the Tree of Life as well, and lived forever. So, to be God is to know good and evil and live forever, of which we have half. Thus, we are more than capable of logically analyzing God's actions "or lack of them), and judging them to be good or evil. And since God created everything, then God created evil. ;p |
2010-05-14, 20:46 | Link #2463 | |||
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
So if you can't detect God, then God himself isn't in the realm of science, only the effect of his interaction. Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by monster; 2010-05-14 at 20:58. |
|||
2010-05-14, 21:42 | Link #2464 |
廉頗
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Massachusetts
Age: 34
|
No, we can't detect him. That's kind of the point. You say he interacts with this world, yet he is undetectable. Therefore it is unscientific to conclude he exists. And I'm pretty sure we're discussing differences in our conclusions, your one being that god is outside the realm of science and mine being that he is within it.
Also, you haven't truly explained why your interpretation is particularly more valid than any other, rather you just keep listing off more of your beliefs. |
2010-05-14, 23:20 | Link #2465 |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
Just to try and get the thread back on track before the mods swoop in and delete pages of posts....
As a child, I was raised a Christian Methodist, in my teens I kept finding more and more didn't add up for me in terms of researching the belief system, the history, and the daily practice (dominant religions in the area were Baptist and Catholic with a smattering of other Protestant religions). In high school and college, I spent a significant amount of time researching and studying religions of the world and their history. Most of my electives were spent that way. Being in Texas and the South, daily encounters with evangelical 'fundamentalism' didn't really improve my opinion of the status quo. By my late-20s, after a great deal of research and study I was far more interested in what scientific agnosticism and Buddhism had to say but kept up the research into J-C-I (there's always something new to learn) as well as eastern philosophy and more esoteric religions. After 50 years of "looking at the problem", I define myself as "scientific agnostic but practice Zen with a streak of poetic animism derived from Shinto and Norse metaphor". (scientific agnostic == I don't rule it out but the evidence for it is non-existent; low probability) (poetic animism == pixies, daemons, and kami are great personifications of forces in nature, you respect them ala Shinto or whatever) (Zen ... daily Buddhism without the clutter of regional variants) I see the importance of spirituality on the community level... but also see how the doctrine can start to rot and how it can be co-opted to manipulate the citizenry. My background in engineering and physics, along with a lifelong interest in the life sciences certainly contributed to my current understanding. The thread is about one's religion and why one has taken to theirs ... just alerting people the thread is not for pushing one particular religion, not about proselytizing, or One True Way assertions.
__________________
Last edited by Vexx; 2010-05-14 at 23:43. |
2010-05-15, 00:56 | Link #2466 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Where Rei Ayanami is...or prolly dreaming.
|
For what it's worth I merely replied to an incorrect view on Christianity, which has been proven incorrect. I don't diss other religions or atheists, whatever disagreements, I keep it to myself - religion is a touchy issue. But when someone states false teachings of Christianity and God, I think, it is fair to contest such gross ignorance and mis-comprehension. Unless of course you're my boss.
I started out a Christian. When I got to college, my professor, an intelligent fellow introduced me to Atheism. I lived it and breathed it. I was a bit arrogant on such belief. I loved to debate the merits of Atheism. As the years passed I finally got access to other resources, made me rethink a lot of matters. Finally went to law school. I think it was only in 4th year of law that I finally got a copy of a lot of apologetics, humbled me a lot. I corrected myself. I believe that science and Christianity is compatible. I believe in the trinity, one God forever and ever. For me, reason and faith is very important, I found this in Christianity. I love a good and cordial debate, and seeing that there are vocal people with misconceptions and ignorance against the Faith, I'm open for discussion, nothing to be afraid of if you think you got a sound and valid point. We all owe ourselves the truth and that includes hearing all sides.
__________________
|
2010-05-15, 00:57 | Link #2467 | ||
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
And to try to be on topic, I don't see the Bible trying to scientifically prove God's existence. So we come back full circle to my original point: that whatever explanation scientists may come up with about the origins of the universe is irrelevant to the Bible. And thus, I don't see my religion and science as being mutually exclusive. Quote:
|
||
2010-05-15, 01:04 | Link #2468 | |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
Quote:
a) buddhist b) shinto-ist c) Zoroasterian (yeah, that's not true though many of the ideas are interesting in their historical context with monotheism) d) animist (I like anime, um, wait, what were you asking?) e) Norse (ripping yarns about forces of nature where Thor dresses as a trap) I've yet to encounter one that had a scripted answer for those --- deer in headlights look. They're ready for those "satan-tinged misleading mainstream religions" like Lutheran or Presbyterian... but eastern or ancient lore is not on their training schedule it seems. Well-meaning people... but coming to my door means you have to put up with me.
__________________
|
|
2010-05-15, 01:08 | Link #2469 | |
I don't give a damn, dude
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: In Despair
Age: 37
|
Quote:
|
|
2010-05-15, 01:27 | Link #2470 | |
廉頗
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Massachusetts
Age: 34
|
Quote:
I've read the Bible. I took four years of Christian theology courses. I come from a practicing Catholic family. So lay it on me, my question didn't even have to do with the Bible scientifically proving God. I'm interested in how you have reasoned that your interpretation of scripture is correct, and why. Also explain to me why you believe some others to be wrong (a few posts back, in response to Anh_Minh). This is within the framework of the topic. |
|
2010-05-15, 01:49 | Link #2471 | |
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 35
|
Quote:
Btw, while you guys are having fun trying to put down other religions as fake and yours as real, it would be better if you guys take some time and read Rene Descartes "Discourse of the Method" and "Mediations on First Philosophy.". From what I see, it seems that only Anh Minh is making rational sense while most others, especially MFSxA who decided to resort to a personal-inclined attack. Statistically speaking, practically most of the Christians I have spoke to never, or hardly read the Bible and try their own interpretation, instead relying on the word of mouth of others. As it is a book which is written like the Canterbury Tales, interpretations differ, so who has the right one? Here's a challenge. For the sake of political correctness, replace the word "God" with "omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient entity.". Due to the fact that believers are often drilled into believing in their religion rather than believing through understanding, they can never adapt to the usage of word in their religious lingo. P.S Btw - I am neutral when it comes to religion. I give the benefit of doubt that some big guy up there may exist, but I will not declare my inclination until I personally see photo of who he/she is.
__________________
|
|
2010-05-15, 02:14 | Link #2472 | |||
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
2010-05-15, 04:25 | Link #2476 | |
阿賀野型3番艦、矢矧 Lv180
Graphic Designer
Moderator Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Belgium, Brussels
Age: 37
|
Quote:
Ironically enough, the simple thought of imagining a 50 years old gentleman, wearing a bear hide cloak, holding double blue ray box is beyond priceless *cough* just to bring out my own piece: Atheist, as you can't exactly call me a "faithful" individual. And I usually have a motto that I would rather expect nothing than being disappointed if I was proved wrong in my expectation. But I think that I found another religion now!
__________________
|
|
2010-05-15, 06:49 | Link #2478 | |
Moving in circles
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 49
|
Quote:
Everything, from the perspective of physics, it may appear, is reducible and thus explanable. To what extent is this correct? |
|
2010-05-15, 06:59 | Link #2479 | |
Komrades of Kitamura Kou
Join Date: Jul 2004
Age: 39
|
Quote:
And even then, how can you conclude without a shadow of a doubt that this "thing" is the most basic of it all, itself without a "cause", as the prime mover that is the cause of everything else? The question becomes whether or not science itself, even when finally perfected, will be able to ascertain and completely describe this thing that was never created, has no creator, but is the creator of everything else. |
|
2010-05-15, 07:19 | Link #2480 | |
Moving in circles
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 49
|
Quote:
We are living creatures, made up of physical matter. All the components that make us the individuals that we are, we can explain in the detail today, thanks to advancements in genetic/biological sciences. We can predict, with a great degree of certainty, what kinds of biological developments can lead to what kinds of illnesses, and take the necessary corrective action to remedy the problem. But can we predict creativity? It's an activity that happens in our brains, a physical organ that can be reduced to neurons and synapses, and so on. If we have the genetic sequence of Beethoven, and created an individual on the exact same template, can we expect this individual to again compose the Ninth Symphony? Are there not limits to what kinds of knowledge we can gain through scientific inquiry alone? |
|
Tags |
not a debate, philosophy, religion |
|
|