First  Prev  103  104  105  106  107  108  109  110  111  112  113  114  115  Next  Last
Post Reply are you religious? if so, why?
5599 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M
Offline
Posted 8/25/13

Tophatjames wrote:


minatothegreatjiraiya wrote:


Tophatjames wrote:

Raised in Ireland so of course i was a catholic, but as i grow older I personally believe in the whole Big bang theory. It just makes so much more logical sense.


I see no conflict with the two. The one who discovered the Big Bang Theory was a priest. It goes along quite nicely with God creating the Universe. Actually, people were originally put off of the idea of the Big Bang Theory because they felt it implied a Creator.


Ah i never knew that, but that's kind of blissful in my eye's.


The majority of scientists do not believe there is a conflict between science and the belief of God. You can look at the following study confirming this:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-5906.2011.01586.x/abstract


31125 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Newcastle, UK
Offline
Posted 8/25/13
I've always felt religion is great so long as its personal. It's when you start trying to impose your beliefs on others that problems begin. Each to their own, let your faith support you... Personally I'm agnostic, though I was raised catholic...
54570 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
16 / M / Maryland
Online
Posted 8/25/13
I recently renounced my faith and became atheist. To me God was like Santa Claus, I stopped believing in him when I was 10, and I was in denial for five years until I finally stopped lying to myself. I guess I'm not truly an atheist, I find it hard to believe that when you die you're just dead, surely there has to be something after death
4334 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
16 / M / My room where els...
Offline
Posted 8/25/13
I'm an atheist I want to give my thoughts.
First i don't believe there is such thing as a religion i believe that it was created as a support pillar. somewhere in time people were poor, hungry, dying of sickness, and were forced to kill to survive thats when god was made up as a way to block out the horrible reality they lived in with a god they will now be saved and reach happiness after death. Also i do believe jesus existed but i don't believe he was the son of god people are told to trust some writing in the bible telling them that jesus was the son of god thats not proof. For all we could now jesus was made out to look that way in the bible since in that time period only a few people knew how to write priests, scholars and some people that worked for the king and who is to know that someone actually followed jesus and wrote down every action he did.

I can go on and on but thats just a little i wanted to say.
10025 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/26/13 , edited 8/26/13

keknight wrote:

For all we could now jesus was made out to look that way in the bible since in that time period only a few people knew how to write priests, scholars and some people that worked for the king and who is to know that someone actually followed jesus and wrote down every action he did.


I understand your process of logic here, however if what your saying is that the accounts of Jesus were fabricated (correct me if thats not what you intended to state), then why would Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all write about similar details and happenings of and in Christ's life. He was obviously a great man that once lived (people from several regions/races/cultures/religions have agreed) , so why write about him if he was not so great. This does not prove his divinity, however the point i am trying to make is that the recordings of the life of Christ were not fabricated, thus adding to the validity of the accounts that happened.I do not believe that they all congregated and decided to come up with this idea, however i will allow that to be a possibility for arguments sake.

In fact if these "events of Jesus' life" ( in quotations if you choose not to believe so) did not occur, then why would the apostles (who were the main ones to write about Christ) not glorify themselves in their own writing? They most certainly would not have made themselves look as pitiful, meager, weak, rebellious, unfit, etc. as they did had it been fiction they were writing. We know that humanity is inherently selfish and prideful so why would "4 regular humans" of a "regular man" not make themselves look better than they did. There are no rules in a fiction novel yet they wrote with humility and without pompous...why?

This is my argument to the validity of the Gospel, however i only came to this understanding not more than a few weeks ago. I understand there may be holes in it and i gladly accept any counter argument. Reason being is that it will only grant me more knowledge and understanding the more im exposed to opposing views. It challenges myself to dig deeper and think harder and in turn i can learn from that. until,hey who knows, maybe one day i wont be able to have an answer and ill be forced to question myself.
10025 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/26/13
however this thread is about religion and i digress by singling out one. However, at the root (as i said before) it does not matter what religion you are, you are nothing without love.
16522 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / Ireland
Offline
Posted 8/26/13

Kenshin_san wrote:


Tophatjames wrote:


minatothegreatjiraiya wrote:


Tophatjames wrote:

Raised in Ireland so of course i was a catholic, but as i grow older I personally believe in the whole Big bang theory. It just makes so much more logical sense.


I see no conflict with the two. The one who discovered the Big Bang Theory was a priest. It goes along quite nicely with God creating the Universe. Actually, people were originally put off of the idea of the Big Bang Theory because they felt it implied a Creator.


Ah i never knew that, but that's kind of blissful in my eye's.


The majority of scientists do not believe there is a conflict between science and the belief of God. You can look at the following study confirming this:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-5906.2011.01586.x/abstract




I am not really interested to be honest, just not into the whole believing in a higher power, We exist and i accept that. Many people have lived their lives not knowing or even caring. I also want to be one.
4334 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
16 / M / My room where els...
Offline
Posted 8/26/13

bship97 wrote:


keknight wrote:

For all we could now jesus was made out to look that way in the bible since in that time period only a few people knew how to write priests, scholars and some people that worked for the king and who is to know that someone actually followed jesus and wrote down every action he did.


I understand your process of logic here, however if what your saying is that the accounts of Jesus were fabricated (correct me if thats not what you intended to state), then why would Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all write about similar details and happenings of and in Christ's life. He was obviously a great man that once lived (people from several regions/races/cultures/religions have agreed) , so why write about him if he was not so great. This does not prove his divinity, however the point i am trying to make is that the recordings of the life of Christ were not fabricated, thus adding to the validity of the accounts that happened.I do not believe that they all congregated and decided to come up with this idea, however i will allow that to be a possibility for arguments sake.

In fact if these "events of Jesus' life" ( in quotations if you choose not to believe so) did not occur, then why would the apostles (who were the main ones to write about Christ) not glorify themselves in their own writing? They most certainly would not have made themselves look as pitiful, meager, weak, rebellious, unfit, etc. as they did had it been fiction they were writing. We know that humanity is inherently selfish and prideful so why would "4 regular humans" of a "regular man" not make themselves look better than they did. There are no rules in a fiction novel yet they wrote with humility and without pompous...why?

This is my argument to the validity of the Gospel, however i only came to this understanding not more than a few weeks ago. I understand there may be holes in it and i gladly accept any counter argument. Reason being is that it will only grant me more knowledge and understanding the more im exposed to opposing views. It challenges myself to dig deeper and think harder and in turn i can learn from that. until,hey who knows, maybe one day i wont be able to have an answer and ill be forced to question myself.


I understand that jesus wasn't just some stanger they just decided to write about since he is like a messanger of god in religions. He had to do some really crazy things to be considered god's son and i know that people have found stuff in the path jesus took the people in. But i also believe that the bible doesn't tell people the whole story since i watched this documentary about a church paying a organization of people who inspected the church and found some stuff that the church didn't want to get out so the church bribed them and later on that organization was destroyed by the king for spitting in the cross so basically there was something in that church that made them become like that.

Can't remember the name of that organization but they were the beginning of the bank system in earlier times
Posted 8/26/13 , edited 8/26/13
Because I can't contemplate the thought of nature being so strongly in harmony by chance. I think it's much more than a coincidence.
3201 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23
Offline
Posted 8/26/13

anti-lambsacrifice wrote:

Because I can't contemplate the thought of nature being so strongly in harmony by chance. I think it's much more than a coincidence.


Harmony in what way? The constant extinctions, pollution, rape, disease, and violence doesn't come across as harmonious to me.
10025 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/26/13

Spazticus wrote:

Getting back to morals, I promised you an answer, so both long and belated as it is, here you go...

Think about that for a moment. The vast majority of scientists worldwide have accepted the Theory of Evolution as the best operating theory for how humanity came to exist, and while there is so much overwhelming evidence to support it... 46% of Americans still claim that a god made humanity in a single day, 10,000 years ago. You may certainly have religion without creationism, but you do NOT have creationism without religion. There is most certainly an obvious correlation here, and the only way to reduce that rate of scientific rejection is to reduce the grip of religion on the minds of people.

How can one be expected to have an understanding of history, and WHY things we consider immoral now, were justified as moral back then, if they are only given a limited set of facts? How can one truly learn the lessons of history, when their minds are so insulated from learning anything that might make them seem not as special as they think they are? It's all too easy to just quote Santayana here, and religion has played a major role in the watering down and revision of our history, not to neglect its harmful effect on the teaching of science. The ease of access to information that we have has ironically led to more people moving away from organized religion; eventually, the number of people who claim no religion will outnumber those who do.

So where am I going with all of this? The factors as laid out above determine the framework in which history is interpreted, and therefore what sort of understanding one may have of the morals of a given period. There are usually other factors in play, religion being a major factor, as well as how socially progressive or regressive the society is at the time. Economics also plays a role, and not just in how prosperous that society is, but the quality of life for those at the lower end of it. And of course, disease, famine, and wars. These aren't the only factors that drive events, of course.



People like David Barton would like to claim that during WWII, The Allies never committed any atrocities, or they justify atrocities by simply saying, "it was war." As just one example of how wrong that denial is, look to the Japanese internment camps, or the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Or the firebombing of Dresden, or even the firebombings of Japan, which killed more civilians than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I spent much of my youth living in Germany, and they have made it illegal to glorify the Nazi regime; for them, it's considered a national shame (and rightly so.) I wonder how many Americans today are even aware that we had internment camps, and do they even care, 70 years later? Would they deny it happened just as easily as some have denied the existence of the Holocaust, even in the face of overwhelming evidence?

The metric I personally use for morality is the same one that I apply to the pillars of good leadership. To be a good leader, one must have humility, wisdom, and courage, and these pillars must be equally balanced.

- One must be humble enough to be kind to those in need; to accept with grace that which is given; to repay debts owed; and to not have too much pride in themselves.
- One must also have the wisdom and foresight to do what is right not just for themselves, but for the others around them; to learn from the experiences and mistakes of others; and to reduce any undue harm their actions may cause.
- One must also have the courage and conviction to carry out their actions, because they are the right thing to do; and their wisdom and humility must steer the course.

To lack just one of these traits will inevitably lead to misguided decisions. To only have one, or none of these traits, will lead to disaster. It should be obvious why lacking in any of these traits can therefore lead to immoral decisions. The most successful leaders throughout history have had all of these traits.

In this light, slavery was never moral, but indentured servitude would be. The latter was a choice, at least, and a legal contract.

In this light, apartheid and Jim Crow laws were immoral, and always will be. The same now applies to discrimination laws against gays, the disabled, or any protected class; they cause undue harm, and are therefore immoral.

In this light, the abolitionist movement, the women's suffrage movement, and the civil rights movement were moral. Human rights campaigns in general have a positive morality in this light, because they seek to end undue harm.
In this light, genocide was never moral, and never will be.

As as opinions go, no human will always make the correct assumptions, or the correct decisions, but that's what these three pillars in sufficient balance are meant to counter. One has to ultimately decide for themselves what is moral for them, and what choices they and their conscience allow them to live with. The billions of people doing so makes up our society. Ergo, society defines its morals, at each individual snapshot in time. The opinion that ultimately leads to the least undue harm is in this light, the better (or best) opinion.

My apologies for the Tolstoy; it's a complex issue.


Ill start from here in reply to what you have said because I agree slavery is wrong however i think we do ourselves great favor to stay away from the stereotype of a religion based off of the actions of any one who claims that religion. That sounds preposterous i know because that is how you draw conclusions but what i am trying to say is that not all individuals operate the same as others (within whichever sect of religion) so it is unfair to associate all members of that religion with everyone else. Just as it is important for people of religion to not assume all atheists are blood sucking evil hate spewers (no worries this is not my view just the one you would hear most from several religious leaders).

now that i have that out of the way that still does not answer the question of where morals originated from. Obviously morals are not instinctive if they are relative, so we cannot chalk them up to evolution (which yes i do believe in evolution because only a fool would be so blind to not notice the adaptations humans, and animals undergo over periods of time, however to confuse things even further i also believe in a creator) which means that if morals did not evolve they had to have been created.

And even still if morals truly are relative that would mean there is no right and wrong. So many people would have (and do have) contrasting ideologies, standards and levels of respect which fails to provide any sort of constants, and we know from science you cannot prove an equation without some sort of constant.

I completely agree and absolutely love those 3 pillars you gave, but i would venture to add that you also need love. And as prominent and "righteous" these pillars are, they still need an origin.
16073 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Lake Elsinore, CA
Offline
Posted 8/26/13
17901 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Los Angeles
Offline
Posted 8/26/13

bensonc120 wrote:


XxNaruTheNarcissistxX wrote:
Originally we were created perfectly without sin or even the knowlege of what sin is. We were also in a perfect world where there was no death. Our original task was to "multiply and fill the earth" as well as be caretakers of it. Then we f**ked up. Adam and eve ate the damn apple and got kicked out. Since then sin entered out bodies and now we have things like greed, murder, rape etc.. etc..


I will never eat an apple again since it causes things like greed, murder, rape, etc... Question: what if the apple is organic would that be better? Seriously, to condemn an entire species just because someone ate an apple? Wow...


XxNaruTheNarcissistxX wrote:
As for me, I follow God, not because im afraid to be destroyed, but I follow Him cuz i Love him because He gave me life, and when i destroyed my life with drugs and alcohol, he brought me out and gave me a path to follow which makes me very happy. I owe my life to him, and quite frankly, that okay with me. I'm more that happy to follow His way. My life has also been less stressful since i accepted his will, i have a career that makes me happy and a wonderful girlfriend whom i Love, and i know that after this body dies, I'll still have a new life. Death isn't the end for us who believe in Christ.


90% of prisoners believe in god while 90% of scientists don't. While I'm glad that you straightened out your life, most of the people I know don't have the problems with drug or alcohol and they didn't need god for that. There are people who overcome their issues without god as well. What works for you may not work for everyone else. Again, with that being said, I am happy that things worked out for you.


XxNaruTheNarcissistxX wrote:
I know some of you might say, "We'll, I dont believe in all this heaven, hell and God garbage!" And I say, "Okay, well a person may or may not believe in prision, but if he kills a person, he's going to prison whether he believes in it or not!"


Not a great example to demonstrate your point since prisons are real. Not believing in something that is real is just as bad as believing in something that's not real. If someone doesn't believe prisons are real, I can literally take him to a prison and show it to him and say," here's a prison." I can't do that with god or other religions.


Wow it must have been alot of work quoting me like that.
37042 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F
Offline
Posted 8/26/13
i'm a christian. am i religious? well, besides playing drums at a church and attending it every week, i don't consider myself as religious as some other people. i don't believe i have a "holier than thou" attitude, and i certainly don't condemn people for not believing in religion. if someone told me they don't believe, i don't tell them they are going to hell. i'm very interested in why they don't believe, but i will not challenge them. you can believe in whatever you want. i think in the end, the only thing that matters to me is mutual respect from believers and nonbelievers. regardless of what religion they believe in.

on a side note, i do support science and work in the science field
23087 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M
Offline
Posted 8/26/13 , edited 8/26/13
I believe in God not religion. religion is just a bunch of manmade stories that they claim is the word of God. God is the creator of all. An existence that has always been, is, and forever will be.There is math in everything meaning intelligent design and therefore its no accident but an organized creation. Is God good or is God bad? I would say God's actions are beyond human comprehension. If you tried to teach a cat math its entire life it would understand nothing and the gap between our intelligence and God's is infinitely greater than that of us and the cat. Don't worry about purpose or reason just enjoy the short experience of life and don't ruin anyone else's enjoyment of life but enhance it if you can. What comes after death? God only knows.
First  Prev  103  104  105  106  107  108  109  110  111  112  113  114  115  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.