You do not have to belive that the universe was created in 6 days 10000 years ago to belive in God. Some of you seems to think that you can not belive in both science and God but that is wrong. One of the most respected scientist and Einsteins friend was a priest. Sorry, I forgot his name.

I also think that a belive in something higher can be good. Something that can help you and make you stronger.

Well, well, well!

Glad to see that you''re (the past 5 or so people who have responded since my last post) all at least willing to undertake this conversation. If you didn''t think that this sort of topic was important, you wouldn''t have responded.

I really don''t understand why everyone keeps getting hung up over the heaven, hell, Christianity thing ... I didn''t bring up Christianity at all ... so there''s no point in trying to knock it down.

Ah well ... I know that no matter what I say, it''s not going to change your way of thinking. And that''s not why I''m even replying to this thread. It''s more to get you to think - and it seems as if it is working, at least in part. Of course, it seems like you are missing the point of what I have written, and you''re just trying to re-establish your own ideas without trying to understand the other''s argument.

Personally ... I can''t see what anyone would want to be athiest. It must be so depressing, when you stop to think about it. Surely life must have some meaning? What makes you think that man is so special that he knows everything, and what he can''t see in front of him, nor understand at first, must be automatically considered false and foolish? If people are willing to believe in aliens, why is believing in a spiritual deific entity so unthought of?

Agnosticism isn''t much better, personally I think it''s worse. Agnosticism is completely impractical - one who is truly agnostic cannot function as a human being (really, no one is an agnostic in one''s daily activities). If you say that "you can''t know anything for certain" ... then how do you know that what you have said is true? If you say "you can''t know anything about religion for certain" - then your statement is still applying to religion - and so how do you know that it''s true? And how can you be partially agnostic? How can you say that you know where to draw the lines? And if you say you can''t know, then how do you know what you can''t know and what you can? The thing is that agnosticism contradicts itself. Each statement forms another question, and there is no definitive resolution at the end. It''s a death of thought, and irrational. At least realize that you CAN know something (maybe not everything, but SOMEthing). And if you can know ... then shouldn''t you try to find out WHAT you can know?

But again ... you are free to think as you wish. I''m only trying to give you reasons to take religion seriously. It claims certain things are true. You cannot just ignore them, because they challenge you and your way of life. You must at least resolve within yourselves the fact that the claims are true or false. Perhaps you are satisfied with your answers as you have given them. But I think that if you would actually sit back and think - forget Christianity for a second - you''d see that they fall quite short. You would realize that there is something more to the universe than we can ever explain. Something more to it than pure science.

There''s something we''re all restless for. We''re not sure what it is, but the more we seem to satisfy ourselves with the things around us, the more dissatisfied we become. We soon come to realize that nothing in this life will please us long. There must be something to fill that want ... that yearning for "we don''t know what". It''s not money, it''s not fame, it''s not sex, it''s not drugs, it''s not power ... for many people have these things, and more ... and if you ask them if they are happy ... if they are satisfied ... they will most likely tell you "no". And even though they may tell you otherwise, you know that they aren''t, because of their actions. They always want "more", and they become greedy, and unable to relish in the happiness and betterment of others. They are never completely satisfied, and in their quest to serve themselves, they become all the more miserable and life loses meaning. And until we find that thing that can set our hearts at rest, we will always be plagued by restlessness and unease.

I leave it up to you to discover that "thing". Call it a god, some sort of other personal or impersonal entity, call it a state of being, call it the highest thing you esteem in this life. But we should search for it - and in fact we do without helping it.

As always, I respect your ability to disagree. And perhaps at most we''re agreeing to disagree. But I appreciate that you''re taking the time to read what I''ve posted. I would ask that in the future, most of you read more carefully - some people are really bent up about Christianity, but I am not speaking on Christian ground here. This is neutral turf. Let''s keep it that way. And please, out of respect for others who hold religious beliefs, do not poke fun at religion, nor speak insultingly about it. If you have any complaints against a religion''s creed, then at least make an attempt to see if what you have heard is true - you might be surprised to find out that what you have heard is only a misunderstanding. Most of the arguments made above are fundamental interpretations and misunderstandings. Most Christians do not believe such things.

As always, I wish you luck in your search for Truth - I''m there searching with you.

eriol

Yeah yeah it''s all fine if people believe in some higher God, as long as whatever it is doesn''t kill his son and feed people his blood and sentence everyone who doesn''t worship him to hell.

Anyways anyone who believes in God for the sole purpose of getting into heaven (the only reason anyone would worship God) is very selfish and if that is a sin, they will all go to hell.

"because he is a just god and must judge the sins of others"
OH! I get it! Worshipping God is like a bribe to get into heaven even though you have sinned! Wow what a great religion! lol.

Anon poster: Yeah you''re right, if you believe in a higher being or whatever that''s fine, and if someone is mentally disturbed or something it might help keep them from killing people because they are afraid of going to hell... but you can''t become stronger from worshipping God, unless you worship a the Holy trinity, the Gym, the Almighty Barbell and the Workout Machines or something equally stupid like that.

"Because He has chosen to give man free will to do what he wants."
Umm... so he says "Do whatever you want but unless you do THIS exact thing you will burn in hell forever." Okaaaaaay...

If I want forgiveness I will rely on something a bit more substantial than Jesus'' blood, since if everyone has been using it for a couple thousand years there probably isn''t much unused blood left, and if there is it is all dry and gross. There were thousands, if not millions of people crucified for equally radical beliefs by the Romans, and if I was an ancient Roman I would probably feel like crucifying anyone who claims they are "God''s son" and have come to "Save the world".

JesusFreak: Yes I know it is easy to come up with lame replies to the scientific evidence for God not existing, but they are very weak. Why don''t you just say something stupid that is harder to attack, like "God''s motives are unfathomable by man" or some other pompous BS.

Eriol, it is not your task to judge people. Writing that you respect after that does not make things better. If you respect should you not have judged from the start.

David, my intention was to write that the belive has a value. In some ways like hope. Without hope is evereything lost. It does not has to be any reasons for your hope but it will do you good.

Okay, I have a few things to add to this little debate.

First of all, I love to read over all of the things that people discuss in these forums because it lets me know that I''m not just listening to faceless being.

Second, I''d like to share my views on religion with you:

I don''t know exactly what I am but I do know that I
don''t believe in any organized religion. I believe
that all religions were created by a government or a
controlling body so to keep its "Peasants" from
committing terrible crimes. Almost like a method of
control for the masses.

I also believe that whatever religion originally started
out as, it has been taken far too seriously. I think
that it might have been created for comfort. (We don''t
know where we came from and never will but believing
in something makes us feel more significant).

I personally don''t need religion because I also believe
that religion was created to help people become better
citizens. I don''t need some "divine" being to tell
me how I should behave, I just know.

Third, I don''t think that this thread should be stopped because I love listening and partaking in interesting conversations/debates like this one. Keep it up. Just because this is an OpenGL forum doesn''t mean we can''t deviate just a little.

I think thats about all I have to say for know. Please don''t knock me too badly.


--------------- Pythus -------------------

P.S. For some interesting information try going to www.religioustolerance.org !!

I agree there. Religion is a drug for the mind. But if it makes people feel better to believe in something ''perfect'', why not ? Humans are not perfect and will never be. So alot of people want to believe in ''a higher entity'' that will help them achieve this ultimate goal, something they will never get in real life. May it be God, Allah, Jehova, Zeus or even Satan, it is OK for me, if it helps them in their life. As long as other people''s believes are respected. Christianity and Islam are both OK, islamic fundamentalism and ''aggresive christians'', trying to convert other people at any price, are definitely NOT.

I think that religion and science are mutually exclusive. Religion is the easy way seeing the world: OK, God did this and that, I''ll accept it and won''t care anymore about it. Science is the way finding out what really lies behind things. The more it will advance, the less probable will the existance of an allmighty God be.

Some people mistake (pseudo-)science as a religion, believing in UFO''s is such a thing. OK, I know that the position ''I only believe in what I can scientifically prove !'' is crap. There are lots of things that we cannot explain, but I''m sure some very advanced science will one day be able to explain _everything_ that is going on in our universe and beyond. Our universe is a physical place based on (extremly complex) rules. I don''t know, if the human intellectual capacity will be great enough to understand all of these rules (I doubt it), but nevertheless, these rules are certainly deterministic. There is no place for an allmighty beeing in such a place.

Anonymous -

Who said judging is disrespectful? I can judge an idea as being right or wrong - its called my conscience, and we all have one ... I''m not judging the people who hold such ideas as being good or bad because of what they believe in. I have no right to do that.

The problem with your proposition is that if such were the case no one would end up judging, and no one would end up being able to determine what is right and wrong. If people cannot judge, then they also lose all concept of right and wrong. For one thing, our legal system would be rather silly wouldn''t it.

So yes. I do judge. And no. I do not judge disrespectfully. In fact your statement is clearly judging me which is, from your argument, not a good thing. In fact, I might add that you go further - in telling me what I should and should not do. I am also a little surprised that you chastize me for "judging", when I do so fairly and respectfully (note, respectful doesn''t mean saying things in such a way as to not offend anyone - people are so often offended by things they shouldn''t be), and there have been many other posts on this thread (you must surely agree) who have blatantly shown much more disrespect to other people in their posts than I may have on accident. I''m not going to get into this argument any further, but I find your response a tad bit hypocritical.

I apologize if this seems heated, but I will not have the kettle calling the pot black. In the future I will do better in making sure I do not come across as judging others.

I would also like to apologize if people think that I am judging them. I''m not. I am exercising my right to use my judgement in determining what is true, and if you find that it is becoming personal, I apologize, and I will do my best to make sure it doesn''t happen again. Since I see more and more people getting heated as this thread lengthens (and little resolution to the discussion - you can write books on everything that''s been brought up), I think I will stop writing to it. I realize that I''ve kinda been the one dragging it out. Sorry about that. You can always email me if you are serious about the topic (you don''t have to agree with me), and want to discuss this sort of thing. As you can probably tell, I like to talk about philosophy and theology. It''s what I like to think about when I break from coding all day.

best regards,

eriol

First of all im not gonna argue wether or not there is a god.

quote:

---

Let me be philosophical:

As far as prooving God''s existance ... well ... what do you mean by proof. Aquinas has 5 "proofs", if you will, for the existance of a higher entity (god-like), but it doesn''t reveal much about it/him/her, save that it is there. Basically there is the argument from design, first mover, first cause ... I forget the other two (first do-er?), but they''re pretty similar to the first cause and first mover proofs. But I think that the proof you want is non-existant. In fact ... you never have such proof, even in your experiencial life. Ask yourself this ... can you really "know" anything? How do you know? What sort of proof do you require in your daily experiences? The fact is, SOME amount if "faith" is necessary in order to function as human beings. The amount of faith necessary depends, though, and can be quite small. The fact still remains that it is always there.

---

Well now... How can you assume that the universe "started". Because our minds cant comprehend that a thing might always has existed doesnt mean it hasnt. If it has always existed then we wouldnt need a "first cause" would we.

If you havent already you should read some of Humes work. I think you would find it interesting.

quote:

---

How about Newtons laws of motion (a thing at rest tends to stay at rest unless acted upon - what set the Big Bang in motion) and the Second Law of Thermodynamics (if the natural state of things is disorder, why is the universe ordered to begin with, and how come we see things become more ordered, i.e. the emergence of life)?

---

Ever heard of entropi? Actually the universe and everything in it moves towards total equality. You simply define that life means order. Isnt the molecular structure in a crystal or metal more ordered that the atoms in our body.

So i guess god likes crystals more than life.

quote:

---

I would say there''s more of a probability that a God-like entity does exist than not, because if you deny a God-like entity, then all you really have left is chance. In a weird sort of way, there is no true athiest, because an atheist attibutes to chance the role of the "first thing" ... and chance takes the place as the god-like entity (a rather impersonal one at that, but it is the thing you believe made everything the way it is, and in fact the thing that keeps it all in motion). Thus in a way (maybe a small stretch) an atheist''s "god" is chance.
If you study probability, you know that as sequences of events get longer and longer, the probabilities of a desired outcome become much smaller and smaller. Thus something as simple, and yet as complex as the development of life would be fundamentally improbable on the smallest orders of magnitude. The whole probability that intelligent life came out of chaos is unfathomable. The chances are infinitely higher that a tornado would blow through a junkyard and produce a flying 747. If you wanted to think of it in codelike terms, think of someone trying to sell you a piece of hardware that is filled with data from a random number generator (a bunch of bits flipping randomly between 1 and 0), and expecting it to run a masterpeice of OpenGl in a user friendly environment with 100% stability. Would you buy it? Is it "probable" that the hardware should work? Yes. Is it "possible"? You''d have to be a fool to actually believe it. heck, I wouldn''t buy it!
So yes ... there may be a probabilty that the universe has no cause, no purpose, no creative entity, but that probability is so terribly improbable, it is (I say this with respect) foolish to hold onto that fact as an option. At least, if you have studied probability, you would be familiar that there comes a point that when the probability becomes small enough, you can count it impossible with a certain level of confidence. In this case your level of confidence would be 99.9999... to about a million decimal places.

---

For your probability theory to hold we must assume that life as we know it is the only possible way that life can exist.
if we had to flip 20 coins and get heads each time to create life then the chance would be 0.5 to the 20th power. What you forget is that life might simply look a little different if only 19 of the coins showed heads.

I believe that much of the universe looks as it does today bacause of chance. But if that last particle which started the Big Bang had joined the singularity from another angle then maybe we would have 4 legs and not 2. It doesnt mean that we wouldnt exist (i know that example is bullshit from a physics viewpoint but you get the idea).


Furthermore i respect your approach very much even though I think i found some errors.

------------------------------------------------------------
The consequence of a belief shouldn''t be a motivational reason to
believe

Let''s not get in any argument instead let''s agree to disagree. I just want to let others know what I believe.

(Anyways anyone who believes in God for the sole purpose of getting into heaven (the only reason anyone would worship God) is very selfish and if that is a sin, they will all go to hell. )

("because he is a just god and must judge the sins of others"
OH! I get it! Worshipping God is like a bribe to get into heaven even though you have sinned! Wow what a great religion! lol.)

Believing in God doesn''t get you into heaven. Excepting his gift does. I don''t worship him because I get to go to heaven. I worship him because I love him, because I''m thankful, and because he is God.

BTW-Fear of going to hell isn''t a good reason to following Jesus.

("Because He has chosen to give man free will to do what he wants."
Umm... so he says "Do whatever you want but unless you do THIS exact thing you will burn in hell forever." Okaaaaaay...)
He doesn''t want people to go to hell but he simply gives them a choice wether to accept his gift or to reject it.

(JesusFreak: Yes I know it is easy to come up with lame replies to the scientific evidence for God not existing, but they are very weak. Why don''t you just say something stupid that is harder to attack, like "God''s motives are unfathomable by man" or some other pompous BS. )

Where is the scientific evidence for God not existing?







Jesus Freak,
Jesus Loves you. He is the Alpha and Omega the Beginning and the End.

quote:

---

Original post by Anonymous Poster

You do not have to belive that the universe was created in 6 days 10000 years ago to belive in God. Some of you seems to think that you can not belive in both science and God but that is wrong.

---

Not to believe in God, but the to believe Christian bible
I would have to believe the Virgo galactic superclustor
is roughly the size of a baseball field.