This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Is there a GOD?

Do you believe in GOD?

  • Absolutely no question--I know

    Votes: 150 25.6%
  • I cannot know for sure--but strongly believe in the existance of god

    Votes: 71 12.1%
  • I am very uncertain but inclined to believe in god

    Votes: 35 6.0%
  • God's existance is equally probable and improbable

    Votes: 51 8.7%
  • I dont think the existance of god is probable

    Votes: 112 19.1%
  • I know there is no GOD we are a random quirk of nature

    Votes: 167 28.5%

  • Total voters
    586
I'm not saying that religious people are weak simply that they have a need to believe to make their world complete.They are unwilling to consider the mysteries of the universe,evolution etc.Believing in religion ties up the loose ends.Some people are a lot stronger with religion but some do unspeakable acts in the name of god
 

Aggressive religious fanaticism could account for some strife.
 

If the human sepecies as we know it were obliterated by say a comet hitting earth.
What would we be left with?
No religion.
Evolution would continue until another life form evolved that had conscious thought.
Would it not be natural as they evolved to then start again with Sun,Mountain,Sea etc worship to explain to the developing mind the un explainable.
Are we so primative that even when we can explain the un explainable we chose to ignore it---for a time anyway.

Many of the Old religious ways of primative people are looked upon as laughable now.
Perhaps in not so many years so to will todays civilisations also be laughed at for their fanaticism and primative beliefs.

Mind you power in religion guarentees a long fight between rational arguement and dogged determination in the spreading of "faith".
 
i can't believe that people still actively purport the myth that is the problems in the world are because of religion...

the problems in this world are becuase of greed, corruption and a quest for power.

religion is just used as a motivating factor, just like race, culture, ethnicity and nationalism! If you take one away, smart politicians will just use another 'divisive' factor to get their way.

the posts on this thread have mostly been so intelligent and informative, its a credit to everyone here... please don't devalue this thread by trying to throw this overtly simplistic and flawed argument into the mix...

and even if you really believe that religion is the cause of all these problems, that still doesn't mean God exists or doesn't... (which is the topic of this thread)...

No one here can lay claim to know what God is thinking by saying, if I was God, i wouldn't want this, or i wouldn't do that, or let that happen, etc, etc...

everything happens for a reason... 99% of the time, i have no idea what the reason is...
 
If the human sepecies as we know it were obliterated by say a comet hitting earth.
What would we be left with?
No religion.
Evolution would continue until another life form evolved that had conscious thought.

Evolutionary scientists themselves started looking at the odds that a free-living, single-celled organism (a bacterium, for example) could result from a chance combining of life building blocks (amino acids, for example). Harold Morowitz, a renowned physicist from Yale University and author of Origin of Cellular Life (1993), declared that the odds for any kind of spontaneous generation were one chance in 10100,000,000,000. 3

Sir Fred Hoyle, a popular agnostic who wrote Evolution from Space (1981), proposed that such odds were one chance in 1040,000 ("the same as the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard could assemble a 747").4

Scientists from various disciplines generally set their "Impossibility Standard" at one chance in 1050 (1 in a 100,000 billion, billion, billion, billion, billion). Therefore, whether one chance in 10100,000,000,000 or one chance in 1040,000, the notion that life somehow rose from non-life has clearly met the scientific standard for statistical impossibility.

3 Harold Marowitz, Energy Flow in Biology, Academic Press, 1968.
4 Sir Fred Hoyle, Nature, vol. 294:105, November 12, 1981
 
Oh yes!

My only comment on that is that this "meme" you describe not only infects the faithful, it also infects the non-faithfully, for it is this that they are rejecting. In the construction of the atheist argument, and in the anti-religious component of their argument, this meme invariably surfaces in the portrayal of the God they deny.

Is this fair?

Yes and No.

It is fair to reject the meme, but is it fair to reject outright the concept of the Great Kahuna in whatever form it may exist? Not without considering alternatives (many have been discussed here) for it then simply becomes an emotional stance which must be backed up by available logic. (a completely normal human trait)

This logic is compelling, but only within the narrow confines of their programmed judeo/christian "linguistic and ideological viruses". In this regard, atheists are also "very hard to de-program" of the model they reject.

This is a favourite discussion topic of mine and I have made some observations regarding the combatants. The religious are often emotionally dogmatic and steadfast in rejecting all other considerations. Others find this quite repugnant TBH.

However the most remarkable observation I make is that atheists, though priding themselves in intellect and an inquiring mind, are often identical in this regard (emotionally dogmatic and steadfast in rejecting all other considerations). I think there is no clearer example of this than Dawkins himself. This man of science can become quite irrational and uses numerous disingenuous arguments to bluster his view forward.

Every discussion on this topic ultimate reverts to this polarized battleground.

It's a nonsense and discredits the debate.

Cheers
 
well said WayneL....

i have always said, that in todays world, especially with everything we know today, to actually beleive in a Big Kahuna requires one to be open minded...

after all, the easiest thing to prove is that God does not exist... coming from a mathematical, engineering backgroud... beleive me, i know a lot about proofs.

I can prove God doens't exist... yet, i know this being (in whatever form its in)... (call it God, the Force, the spirit, etc).... does!
 
The original (open to opinion) inhabitants of individual land masses on earth had a belief in something beyond what was solid or real.Spirits,Dreamtime or Inti for example.So it seems to me groups,races etc. needed something to believe in to maintain social structure.This is the purpose of believing in a god or other.To bond the group, to maintain order.

With so many different groups on the planet then there are going to be as many different beliefs.As the numbers multiply the beliefs will vary too.I really can`t see how social structure will be maintained/controlled with so many beliefs in different gods.The group with the most convincing story will obviously have the most numbers.

Strange enough , in my search for meaning to life and how the mind works I find some of the lines in the bible are really good practices and guidelines to live life by.Though in no way do I limit my belief to one particular following and in this way I am not bound to the words. or am I....The individualist society.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins

 
Of course!
 

Attachments

  • God.GIF
    43.7 KB · Views: 126
Take a swag, camp in the outback and have a look at the Milky Way on a clear crisp night.
The big bang created all of that and what created the big bang?I am calling him God.
 
Take a swag, camp in the outback and have a look at the Milky Way on a clear crisp night.
The big bang created all of that and what created the big bang?I am calling him God.
And what created that particular God?
 
Take a swag, camp in the outback and have a look at the Milky Way on a clear crisp night.
The big bang created all of that and what created the big bang? I am calling him God.
When I look at the stars I think of Galileo, who was clever enough to reason from that that the earth moved around the sun, (maths in motion) and was placed in house arrest by the Pope until he died 9 years later
Surely the Galileo incident did nothing to help the cred of the church.

I copy this from a previous post (to Bloveld who introduced Semmelweis award)
I think Galileo 1564 - 1642 takes the cake for the Semmelweis award, at least for the 17th century - over his opinion that the Earth revolved round the sun, although the church insisted otherwise. "G was forced to recant his views and placed under house arrest for the rest of his life. Following his recantation, G is said to have murmured Eppur si Muove (still itmoves). He was finally cleared of heresy by a Vatican commission in 1992!" Who said the church wasnt heavily into forgiveness.

 

Attachments

  • galileo.jpg
    76.2 KB · Views: 162
When I look at the stars I think of Galileo, who was clever enough to reason from that that the earth moved around the sun, (maths in motion) and was placed in house arrest by the Pope until he died 9 years later
I'm not sure how Galileo got into this (is he God? ) but criticising religion for its follys probably shouldn't be in this thread. It's man (and women) who has been the construct of our blundering through history. Plenty of non believers have turned the gas switch on, as but one example. I'm sure there will be plenty more to come now that atheism is almost an acceptable philosophy of life.

I do very much like the Galileo story though. The Catholics probably still think it was cool. Thanks!
 
PS Allan, saying that God created the big bang is ok by me. (and having set it in motion has been watching on since).

Even Weird's proposal that evolution is all ok (which is what cdk007 said incidentally) - granted a few riders that God somehow planned it that way, which I find a fairly severely watered down version of creationism.

But having the Pope tell us that it is God's will that third world countries don't use condoms, or that he is the arbiter of what is or isn't moral (etc ) what the??

Kennas - ok lol - guilty as charged. I've linked the church with the concept of God..

Question (to myself) is it possible to separate them ?
answer , I guess it is , at least if you try hard lol - certainly results in more harmonious discussion lol.

PS there have been other threads about religion as you say, and usually a lot of bruises and black eyes

PS I guess I defend reference to Galileo becos he wos the father of the cosmos (scientifically speaking - well at least one of them - many a paternity suit argued out in scientific court there as well ) and kinda relevant in that the current Pope has just stated that he is "cool" with evolution
- lol even the church is evolving !
 
Thanks 2020hindsight.


http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.php

 
Galileo, who, asserted a scientific truth of profound importance denied it when faced with torture and death. To tell the truth is a futile exercise.
 
http://www.catholic.com/library/galileo_controversy.asp

 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...