You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Whilst the two make claims about our universe which are mutually exclusive ...
They don't
The "who" that you refer to that apparently "believers" in Physics defer to, "who" is that "someone else" exactly?...
I am not a scientist
Well then, you tell me.
Some theories may also be termed "facts"
No.
Religious teachings about where we came from withstand no scrutiny
Let's not confuse religous teachings with ideas about the existence of God. Though I'd be interested to know what you know of these teachings.
I have 'faith' that aeroplanes work, just like others have 'faith' in a deity or deities.
No this is not my use of the term faith. Aeroplanes do work, we've seen that. Gravity happens, we've seen that. The 'faith' comes in when you say, Well, I've no idea how it works, but i'm sure some very clever people have thought about it and I'm sure they are right.
When there are two conflicting theories about a physical phenomenon and you lack the understanding and knowledge to know which is right, yet you chose one over the otehr, what is that if not just a belief?
No this is not my use of the term faith. Aeroplanes do work, we've seen that. Gravity happens, we've seen that. The 'faith' comes in when you say, Well, I've no idea how it works, but i'm sure some very clever people have thought about it and I'm sure they are right.
While I see what you are saying there I prefer to change it to:
[i]Well I've no idea how it works, but given time I can find out.[/i]
I'm never sure anyone is right and am willing to change my mind, depending upon evidence. As Tom Baker's Doctor stated: "Being sure of any one thing is a sign of limited intelligence." 😆
Well I've no idea how it works, but given time I can find out.
The underlying presumption here is that "someone" actually knows. This is not always the case. And certianly not with gravity
I'm never sure anyone is right and am willing to change my mind, depending upon evidence
Yup, though I would necessarily be so prescriptive that it needs to be evidence. For me...
I'm never sure anyone is right and am willing to change my mind,
Whilst the two make claims about our universe which are mutually exclusive ...They don't
Wow somebodies been busy!
Judaism claims the world is only circa 6000 years old.
Christians believe that there is an afterlife and some even believe natural disasters are as a result of homosexuality! They also believe the laws of biology and physica can be suspended to facilitate the virgin birth and that the dead can be brought back to life.
If you cant see how these are at odds with those that think these things are not possible then its really quite concerning.
The "who" that you refer to that apparently "believers" in Physics defer to, "who" is that "someone else" exactly?...
I am not a scientist
Well then, you tell me.
You raised the question of a "somebody" not me so I think it is your question to answer not mine.
I'm never sure anyone is right and am willing to change my mind,
But what would it take, therefore, to change your mind? I usually ask for a chat or discussion (like this one). Obviously you haven't changed your mind regarding this discussion - why not? Normally when a person has a view of something and someone disputes it they ask for a reason why they should change their mind. Or if you see something that is contrary to your view you change your mind - usually. That is called evidence.
You raised the question of a "somebody" not me so I think it is your question to answer not mine.
How am i supposed to know who it is [i]you [/i]believe about Physics?
But what would it take, therefore, to change your mind? I usually ask for a chat or discussion (like this one). Obviously you haven't changed your mind regarding this discussion - why not? Normally when a person has a view of something and someone disputes it they ask for a reason why they should change their mind. Or if you see something that is contrary to your view you change your mind - usually. That is called evidence.
Depends really, I've changed my mind about some things based on this discussion. If by why not, you mean I haven't changed my mind about the existence or not of a God. I'd be surprised if you could point me to where i stated my beliefs in that respect. If you mean have i changed my mind about people who do not believe in a god? Then now, but in this discussion I have not heard anything new, nor has it been presented in any way other than that which I have heard in any number of arguments over the years. The 'there is no proof' argument is not new nor is it particularly complex.
Well I've no idea how it works, but given time I can find out.The underlying presumption here is that "someone" actually knows. This is not always the case. And certianly not with gravity
Then I must respond with either "No-one knows, [b]yet[/b]." (which may be the case with gravity - after all people are continuing their experiments and theories now) and possibly "It may be that we do not find out." Neither requires unquestioning belief in the existence of one or more of an infinite number of speculated entities to do that thinking/magicking away for us.
"I don't know."/"I'm not sure" - I can live with those answers.
But what would it take, therefore, to change your mind?
Any number of things, but many times it is not a predictable process. When I was with a group of journalists who had been out of contact for 2 days and they started saying Diana had died, then I didn't believe them. eventually more and more people started saying it, though i hadn't been presented with any evidence, I then started to believe that she had. So it didn't take evidence.
Sometimes, I see evidence published in peer-reviewed journals which strongly conflicts with my own experience and i don't change my mind.
can't really say why i change my mind. But in fairness, there has been no real discussion here from the atheists, just a repetition of the same point.
Neither requires unquestioning belief in the existence of one or more of an infinite number of speculated entities to do that thinking/magicking away for us.
This is not the point, as i have said before. I am not claiming that because we don't understand physics we must believe in God, rather I am saying because we don't understand physics, we have to believe Physics / Physicists
Depends really, I've changed my mind about some things based on this discussion. [b]If by why not, you mean I haven't changed my mind about the existence or not of a God[/b]. I'd be surprised if you could point me to where i stated my beliefs in that respect. If you mean have i changed my mind about people who do not believe in a god? Then now, but in this discussion I have not heard anything new, nor has it been presented in any way other than that which I have heard in any number of arguments over the years. The 'there is no proof' argument is not new nor is it particularly complex.
Nope, not my intention in this discussion.
Nope, not my intention in this discussion.
Good! 'cos i doubt you would know what to change it from!
🙂
This is not the point, as i have said before. I am not claiming that because we don't understand physics we must believe in God, rather I am saying because we don't understand physics, we have to believe Physics / Physicists
I would use the word 'believe' in this context personally as 'trust'. If my iPod turned into a block of cheese I would start doubting them. I would not use 'believe' as in 'I believe what physicists say about how silicon chips work' as I would for belief in deities.
I am saying because we don't understand physics, we have to believe Physics / Physicists
you don't 'have' to believe them. If it is a well documented theory and there is a highly-regarded paper/s on that theory you should (given you have the money and equipment) be able to recreate the experiment and see for yourself. In theory.
you don't 'have' to believe them. If it is a well documented theory and there is a highly-regarded paper/s on that theory you should (given you have the money and equipment) be able to recreate the experiment and see for yourself. In theory.
No, the effect on the world is predictable and repeatable, the understanding of the how of, Gravity for example, is the thing you have to believe or not
the effect on the world is predictable and repeatable
it is the predictable and repeatable that begin to help people understand the mechanisms by which things happen. Using your own example (for a different point) above when you could begin to predict that people would say Diana is dead, you changed your thinking (does that work as a point?). Maybe the 'answer' to gravity has not yet been solved but we certainly know a lot more about it by repeating experiments and observing the effects. We begin to understand what can be considered within a theory of gravity and what should not be.
we certainly know a lot more about it by repeating experiments and observing the effects.
erm...No.
erm...No.
Sorry, I don't believe you. Can you provide something to back up your assertation? 😀
If my iPod turned into a block of cheese I would start doubting them.
Which iPod do you have? I think mine is already made of cheese...
Is there anyway we can ever come to an agreement on this? Could we not just accept that some people believe in God / faith / religion / some sort of afterlife, and some people dont. Why the tedious, ongoing arguments? Or is the arguing the whole point?
erm...No.
Sorry, I don't believe you. Can you provide something to back up your assertation?
Easily! I've been repeatedly explaining the flaws in your arguments, many many times, with entirely predictable and repeatable results. However, I still know nothing more about how you can all be so stupid.
🙂 (but only at AdamW)
Could we not just accept that some people like to discuss God / faith / religion / some sort of afterlife, and some people dont.
Just got back from a terrific ride.
barnsleymitch - MemberIs there anyway we can ever come to an agreement on this? Could we not just accept that some people believe in God / faith / religion / some sort of afterlife, and some people dont. Why the tedious, ongoing arguments? Or is the arguing the whole point?
Depends what you mean by "we".
I fully accept that people believe in stuff that I find ridiculous.
"Why the tedious... arguments". - Probably because although religion has had it all it's own way for centuries, "atheism" (sometimes dubbed the "New" atheism - although I don't notice any difference with what went before) has suddenly found a voice and religion is suddenly complaining about it. Personally, I think that the starting point for this can be traced back to the publishing of "The God Delusion". The internet has enabled the argument to be taken forward on a huge scale, with speed.
It is fortunate that the supporters of various kinds of superstitions are no longer able to torture and burn people as witches... This has happened due to the progress of human ethics, often in the face of serious opposition from the supporters of ignorance.
Just my opinion, of course - attack at will, I won't be "offended". 8)
has suddenly found a voice and religion is suddenly complaining about it.
But no one here is complaining about atheism.
sometimes dubbed the "New" atheism - although I don't notice any difference with what went before) has suddenly found a voice and religion is suddenly complaining about it. Personally, I think that the starting point for this can be traced back to the publishing of "The God Delusion". The internet has enabled the argument to be taken forward on a huge scale, with speed.
I agree on this. However, I find it strange that 'New Atheists' have nothing to say that hasn't been said over and over again prior to Dawkins. Yes, there is a new champion of Atheism, but nothing in the God Delusion was new.
I fully accept that people believe in stuff that I find ridiculous.
but do you also accept that you believe in stuff which other people find ridiculous. (pre-emptively, I'll point out that most god believers do not think atheism is ridiculous)
(pre-emptively, I'll point out that most god believers do not think atheism is ridiculous)
So, logically, as they don't think atheism is ridiculous, is it reasonable to conclude they don't believe in God then?
Or was this another troll?
[i]but do you also accept that you believe in stuff which other people find ridiculous[/i]
My cat didn't pee on the sofa, so no.
So, logically, as they don't think atheism is ridiculous, is it reasonable to conclude they don't believe in God then?/quote]
What? Why would that be the case? You use the term 'logically' in a very loose way.
as they don't think atheism is ridiculousYou might also conclude that they think it's fine for people to believe all kinds of things, you might conclude that they think God made folks atheists because he didn't want them in heaven anyway, you might conclude that they think there can only be a faith if there is a non-faith. Others will no doubt have other possible scenarios. why can you only see one 'logical' conclusion?
Honestly, Dawkins and Pat Condell, The same tired arguments. Does any one have an original idea of their own?
Pat Condell is an incredibly useful resource. In future, to avoid expressing exasperation with those who seem likely to think that there's wind because the trees are waving about, I might just say "Go to Youtube and search on "Pat Condell" - you'll find everything I want to say about your beliefs there".
CharlieMungus - MemberHonestly, Dawkins and Pat Condell, The same tired arguments. Does any one have an original idea of their own?
Well, when you get one Charles, DO let us know...
Lazy response Woppit, I've made my case, it's a synthesis of a range of ideas. It is not just a dump of someone else's ideas.
Seems like Dawkins and Condell are your gods.
Your second sentence simply shows that you are not listening to the argument. Apart from pointing out the stupidity of trying to assert that an Atheist has "gods", even suggesting that he/she would regard evidential humans as such, it is a fine example of the suspicion that one often gets that one is trying to talk sense to idiots.
Actually, I recommend that you go to Youtube and search on "Pat Condell" - you'll find everything I want to say about your comments there"...
CharlieMungus - MemberHonestly, Dawkins and Pat Condell, The same tired arguments. Does any one have an original idea of their own?
Does any one have an original idea of their own?? It would seem only aetheists can! Religious people aren't allowed to have any original ideas of their own. Religious dogma takes care of that! (Religion goes a bit like this; You WILL believe, you WILL have faith, you WILL NOT question, OR ELSE you will be struck down and burn in Hell with Satan). Original "ideas" from relious types, that'll be a first! 😆
We must stop talking about this as it's blasphemous! 😆
The Descendants of Adam
1 Chr. 1.1-4
1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
2 male and female created he them; Mt. 19.4 · Mk. 10.6 and blessed them, Gen. 1.27, 28 and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
3 And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
4 and the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
5 and all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
6 ¶ And Seth lived a hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
7 and Seth lived after he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters:
8 and all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died.
9 ¶ And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Ca-i'nan:
10 and Enos lived after he begat Ca-i'nan eight hundred and fifteen years, and begat sons and daughters:
11 and all the days of Enos were nine hundred and five years: and he died.
12 ¶ And Ca-i'nan lived seventy years, and begat Mahal'aleel:
13 and Ca-i'nan lived after he begat Mahal'aleel eight hundred and forty years, and begat sons and daughters:
14 and all the days of Ca-i'nan were nine hundred and ten years: and he died.
15 ¶ And Mahal'aleel lived sixty and five years, and begat Jared:
16 and Mahal'aleel lived after he begat Jared eight hundred and thirty years, and begat sons and daughters:
17 and all the days of Mahal'aleel were eight hundred ninety and five years: and he died.
18 ¶ And Jared lived a hundred sixty and two years, and he begat Enoch:
19 and Jared lived after he begat Enoch eight hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:
20 and all the days of Jared were nine hundred sixty and two years: and he died.
21 ¶ And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methu'selah:
22 and Enoch walked with God after he begat Methu'selah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:
23 and all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years:
24 and Enoch Heb. 11.5 walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.
25 ¶ And Methu'selah lived a hundred eighty and seven years, and begat Lamech:
26 and Methu'selah lived after he begat Lamech seven hundred eighty and two years, and begat sons and daughters:
27 and all the days of Methu'selah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died.
28 ¶ And Lamech lived a hundred eighty and two years, and begat a son:
29 and he called his name Noah, 6 saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the LORD hath cursed.
30 And Lamech lived after he begat Noah five hundred ninety and five years, and begat sons and daughters:
31 and all the days of Lamech were seven hundred seventy and seven years: and he died.
32 ¶ And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
As always I have read the innitial post and skipped to the end, So I can get my say in then go back to my life.
Too much time in front of the screen, not good.
I believe that life is a journey, from birth to death. That in between these two points society, culture and circumstance in general will tell us who we are or as I have chosen to do, we can discover who we are.
By simply saying f@ck this sh1t, I'm consciously out of here! Get away you complete and utter morons, you want to tell me how to run my life, your way of life is pointless, the very air you breath is foul and toxic and to top it all off! you're destroying the planet.
SHUT YOUR CAKE HOLES, YOU AINT GOT A CLUE!!!!!
Spirituality for me is the only path worth walking, I do not mean chanting or funny coloured robes, I do not mean shaving your head or smacking your own @ss 😯 .
I mean what ever the individual feels most alive doing, as long as it does no harm to anyone else and is not detrimental to our species development and evolution. Then self expression is simply our individual degree of freedom.
Freedom is the individuals right too choose and what we do by choice determines the individual limits of that freedom. I believe that is why so many people are unhappy, they have so little choice in thier own lives and cannot help but feel trapped or oppressed, depressed even.
How we express ourselves through actions and thoughts determines who we are, if we are not to be judged on what we can do, then we are to be judged or treated unfairly.
Religion for me is too limited, life and existence in this physical reality is progressive and perpetually changing. To believe that a book that isn't constantly being updated is still valid after so long is simply foolish. It was crap when it was written and two thousand years later, it's stinks to high heaven.
Can we learn from the bible or any other christian texts, will it allow us to dive into our own beings, to grasp who we are through visualization and then realization of self. Will it enable us to become better people, more developed or capable beings?
If you want to one day be like the pope or the churches other deranged lunatic minions, read the christian texts.
If however you would prefer to be free to explore who you are, then simply look inside yourselves. The world is not the reality of things, the world is simply a reflection of how you are inside.
You determine what you see, when you look at creation, or more accurately your consciousness interprets the information that your senses supply it with.
Books and the facts they contain are merely triggers for thoughts not yet born, it is the journey of coming to understand those facts and to determine what you believe the meaning of life is from that realization, that will determine how you view yourself and the place you asign yourself in creation.
Self realization is simply true freedom!
Freedom lies within the hearts and minds of those with the strength, to venture within, to claim it!
In short, I as always have no idea what I'm talking about, so I will leave it at that!
🙄 😯 😳
I mean what ever the individual feels most alive doing,
Sounds good. Why don't you just actually call it "whatever you feel most alive doing", though? I mean - that's actually what it is, right?
dammit, this thread moves very quickly.
well done all, keep it going, i'm sure we'll get to the bottom of it eventually...
me? - i like taoism, it encourages me to accept, enjoy, and find inspiration in the nature / spirit / way / tao of things, and it's perfectly compatible with atheism.
carry on.
"The Quality of Mercy is not strnen"... 😉
(Just thought I'd try something oblique).
Your second sentence simply shows that you are not listening to the argument. Apart from pointing out the stupidity of trying to assert that an Atheist has "gods", even suggesting that he/she would regard evidential humans as such, it is a fine example of the suspicion that one often gets that one is trying to talk sense to idiots.
Dear me you are very literal .This time read the post again and don't take it so literally.
Actually, I recommend that you go to Youtube and search on "Pat Condell" - you'll find everything I want to say about your comments there"...
I've seen the Pat Condell stuff before, every atheist in an argument about God, goes to Condell and Dawkins.. But why send me there to look at it. Do you not have your own opinion? Surely your argument is not limited to "whatever that guy says"
Nevertheless, Condell is talking about religion, not about the belief in a god. He does start by saying that if it was only about faith, then he would have no trouble giving it the respect it wants. Well, that's all anyone one here has spoken about, no one has said that they are going to do anything to anyone in the name of religion. I take it, as you agree with Condell, and he answers that you have no problem giving MrNutt the respect he wants.
Oh right, so it's all about me, again.
You don't get something by just wanting it...
"I recommend that you go to YouTube..." etc. - my final words on the subject.
For now.
woppit what is your personal experience of Faith & Religion, were you once a Christian? were you educated through a Christian school? Are your parents Religious? I've told you all of the above about myself.
The reason I ask is because you seem against both someone having Faith in God and also organised Religion as a whole. What galvanises this hate?
You don't get something by just wanting it..."I recommend that you go to YouTube..." etc. - my final words on the subject.
I'm wondering if you've even listened to Condell now. He starts by saying that if it was only about faith, the he would be happy to give those people all the respect they want. So, in fact
I recommend that you go to YouTube..
Wow, that's either some thoughtful profound stuff there Kasaeae or some proper rambling bollecks. either way, I gotta high-five you for effort! whoo 🙂
[quote=Pat Condell] In fact if that's all it was, just a belief, then I'd have no problem giving religion all the respect it wants... even if I found it tasteless, i would respect them enough not to say so
it also appears that his gripe is with Theology, not people having Faith, where as you appear to read his words as all Religion = Evil, where as what he says is Evil is never very far away, I agree, its everywhere. Its called human nature.
What galvanises this hate?
I suspect Woppit's been shagged by the Devil...........he owes him. Big time.
ok, now then, I've been watching a few videos, some pro religion, some against.
I've gotta say Evangelical stances from both sides, whilst clearly impassioned can become quite heavy going.
So far the most entertaining subject appears to be the Creation/Evolution debate.
Now as a Christian I am inclined to believe that nothing didn't just come from nothing but it was created by God.
The Science side of me quite likes the Big Bang concept, but that appears to be also be an act of belief rather than fact.
A couple of the Evangelical Christian videos I've watched do make some interesting points, Such as:
[u]The Big Bang Theory debunked?[/u] (by physics)
The Big Bang occurred, all the matter in the universe was compressed into an infinitesimal space, it then began spinning, then exploded.
Time & matter began expanding and continues to do so, eventually the process will reverse and it will all happen over again.
but then if you consider physics, specifically the [b]Law of Conservation of Angular Movement[/b]; which essentially says if something flys off something spinning clockwise in a frictionless environment that jettisoned will also spin clockwise.
The question it then raises is, shouldn't everything be spinning in the same direction?
Then why does Venus, Uranus & possibly also Pluto all appear to spin backwards?
Also 8 out of the 91 moons in our solar system rotate backwards also Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune have moons rotating in both directions.
This is held up as evidence of creation, in direct opposition to the scientific theory that it imply it is all just the result of one Big Bang.
It appears that both Science and Religion require quite a leap of Faith!
Well? What do you think of that?
science requires no faith. the opposite in fact.
we are encouraged, even required, to question scientific theory, to test it. pick holes. point out flaws.
you mentioned the spinny rotation thing, the formation of the early solar system is not completely understood.
but there is evidence* of enormous collisions between planet-sized bodies, it is entirely possible that such a collision would change/reverse the rotation of a planet.
(*our moon)
"It appears that both Science and Religion require quite a leap of Faith!"
Er no...... it does not, religionists may keep spouting that, but frankly that's just clutching at semantic and semiotic straws, trying to lower us to their level. imho 🙂
science requires no faith. the opposite in fact.
have you read the rest of the thread?
Nutt, I don't think you'll get a response from Woppit. He's in the awkward position of having cited one of his heroes, only to find that he is in oppostion to him
most of it, yes. why?
if you're happy trusting / ignoring science, fine.
but the reason that science works is because it is built on curious scepticism*.
(* 'are you sure? - let me have a look' ... etc.)
curious scepticism. my point exactly, The Big Bang is essentially science proving something other than Creation, only it doesn't hold up, well it holds up as much as Creation, wouldn't you agree?
The choice to believe in the Big Bang or Creation. well both are acts of Faith no?
no.
there is no shame in admitting that we don't know something; what caused the 'big-bang' / what happened before the big-bang?
we don't know, but we're trying to find out.
ok, let me simplify it for you:
Do you believe in the Big Bang or Creation?
i understand that the 'big bang' hypothesis is supported by lots of evidence.
or rather, evidence was found that led to the hypothesis of 'a big bang', that hypothesis was used to predict what other evidence we should find, and we did.
it's a hypothesis that works - it's now a theory.
which fails due to Sciences Law of Conservation of Angular Movement, no?
no.
i am not an astrophysicist - you are asking the wrong person if you want answers on astrophysics.
i don't accept 'god did it' as an answer to tricky questions that i cannot answer.
i would guess that the angular momentum of the universe is Zero, but that doesn't mean that planets can't spin.
if you have questions, there are better people than me to answer them. try reading a brief history of time as a starting point.
Space is a vacuum no? The movement would be a result of the Big Bang.
just wondering,
do you, or have you ever, prayed?
edit: I'll pick up a copy tomorrow.
i went to a CofE school, we said the lord's prayer everyday...
not so much any more, i'm a taoist atheist - seriously.
me too, (CoE, not tao-atheist) what I meant was, alone.
no, why would i?
I don't know.
i'm a taoist atheist - seriously.
Seriously ?
I have been to a Taoist service/ceremony at a local Taoist temple, and I was under the impression that Taoism embraced [i]all[/i] religions rather than just one. So I'm not quite sure how that can accommodate atheism.
Mind you, the service was in Chinese, and since I don't speak a word of Chinese, I might have got that all wrong.
"which fails due to Sciences Law of Conservation of Angular Movement, no? "
A combination of Newton's first and second and third laws, as well as Euler's Laws of motion deal with this really quite conveniently. Oh and read up on Continuum mechanics as well.
ernie_lynch - Memberi'm a taoist atheist - seriously.
Seriously ?
I have been to a Taoist service/ceremony at a local Taoist temple, and I was under the impression that Taoism embraced all religions rather than just one. So I'm not quite sure how that can accommodate atheism.
Mind you, the service was in Chinese, and since I don't speak a word of Chinese, I might have got that all wrong.
seriously.
have you heard the story of the 3 vinegar tasters? - if life brings you vinegar, eat chips.
'the tao' or 'the way' is almost intentionally hard to explain, but perhaps could be simplifed as 'go with the flow'
how?
any pointers are appreciated, suggest me a starting point on quantum mechanics if you could please? 🙂
have you heard the story of the 3 vinegar tasters?
Can't say that I remember that story. But I do remember being told by Taoist believers that they were polytheistic, in that they accepted the divinity of Christ, Allah, Buddha, etc.
If science and a religion are found to be in direct contradiction one to another, then it is safe to say that the religion in question is flawed and not worth listening to. Any religion that is found to be based on lies or misconceptions, can be said to be out of touch with reality or fundamentally flawed in it's analysis techniques.
Religion is a system by which it is claimed an individual can come to understand GOD or thier realtionship with GOD, since it is claimed that GOD created all things, then we can also say that GOD is the creator.
Since GOD is the creator and thus creation is made by the hand of GOD or as I believe the will of the first one! does it not also make sense that studying the laws that govern creation and from this understanding of how creation works, we should come to understand the nature of GOD? and our relationship with all things in creation?
I do not believe in most religions, however there are some that I see as being worth while, not many, as most are just systems of control.
As for my own beliefs, I have a belief system that I employ, a philosophy or as I think of it, an analysis technique. Yes I believe in a great being that has tremendous power. But what they get upto is their business and what I get upto is mine. If they're not sharing their beer, then I'm not sharing mine, regardless if they own the very molecules of the beer or not.
In short, although I believe in the first one completely, I do not feel any over whelming urge to worship or donate money to people claiming to represent any devine being. I will be judged on my behaviour and conduct, also how I percieve the world and what I hold to be important.
I would rather spend my time trying to help people get out biking and giving support to the people I care about, than spend my time delusionally believing that the creator of all things needs me to pray or ware funny clothes or sing daft songs that make no sense.
If I had a lot of children I would rather they where out being productive, than hanging about grovelling to me on their hands and knees. Humble yes, subservient no!
Good luck to everyone looking for spirituality, as for religion, I simply can't afford to be involved in it 😯
MRwoppit wrong thread, the mug shot thread is over there!
Interesting....
MrNutt you appear to use the word 'Belief' to give an equal rating to 'Creation' and 'Science' (yeah, ridiculous capitals again). Your argument seems to favour the Christian creation myth. If I were to follow your reasoning why would I stop at those two? Why not creation by an infinite number of ways?
Creation caused by:
[list][*]A team of aardvarks[/*]
[*]Giant space amoebas from the tenth dimension [/*]
[*]An iPod made of cheese[/*]
[/list]
I got a million of them... So are they all equally likely to have happened? I include the Christian myth and big bang theory in there too. The only thing I can think of is looking for something to back up the hypotheses given. That does tend to favour the big bang theory, no matter how hard I look at my iPod and dream of a nice bit of Wensleydale....