Can A Rational Individual Believe In God?
The short answer is, "Yes."
Should he or she, though?
My answer , after my own search, long, difficult, very individualistic is again, "Yes."
Can I understand why some or many rational individuals would have difficulty with the very notion of believing in any God? Again, "Yes."
I was raised in a Holiness Church in Southern Appalachia, back in the day when most of the country was not influenced bys such beliefs. It was in a small town, with small town values and a small town outlook -- parochial, extremely miopic and limited.
I began questioning my religion by the time I was 5 or so; I intensly tried to believe what I was told -- the imminent end of the world, the angry God who will judge us all, speaking in tongues as a sign of salvation. I lived in mortal terror 24 hours a day, and in guilt. By the age of 12, I refused to go back to church anymore -- I had no good replacement for the beliefs, but I knew I could not live up to what was demanded, and I saw no one else was living up to the demands, either.
I began studying other forms of Christianity -- I had a few Catholic friends, hardly devout, but who had an alternate take on Christianity. I studied world religions, mysticism; you name it, I read about it. I affiliated myself with nothing, but made it up as I went. I suppose I was still a Christian in some sense, but had no notion of what traditional, historical Christianity taught as I'd never been exposed to it.
In college, I began studying philosophy. Especially Nietzsche, whom I loved and still admire. And this quickly led to questioning the need for any belief at all in any deity, for many of the reasons many people who post here advance -- and this led to atheism.
However, as an atheist, I never became a dogmatist. I could not accept that God's existence is by definition impossible, so all rational dicussion of the existence of God was pointless. My intellectual exhaustion with God and religion never advanced that far. I did think I'd never seen a proof God's existence was possible -- as a good philosopher, I remained open to it, if I ever saw it.
Eventually, I ran into the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas and a refinements of one of his famous 5 Proofs of the Existence of God by a contemporary philosopher called Mortimer J. Adler. I realized that, if Adler had not proven God exists, he had proven God is possible -- it would not be irrational to believe in God.
He had not proven this or that religious view was correct -- but he had shown traditional religious views do not contradict anything we can know, or should not. So I began, tentatively, to explore philosophy of religion as both an undergrad and grad student.
I found traditional positions on many of the issues that had perplexed me -- Did God create evil?Why is the creation imprefect? and so forth. I found many bad answers, but I also found many good ones -- more than that, I realized that our ancestors were not gullible fools, did not take belief lightly, and did have doubts about God and faith they wrestled with daily, strongly. The record of these philosophical and theological struggles were just as much a part of religion as the scriptures, and one could not come to scripture adequately without a knowledge of these. Else one would attempt to reinvent the wheel.
The belief one must reinvent the wheel in one's own life in order to have an authentic belief and not be "part of the herd" is certainly egoistic -- but it isn't individualistic. Tradition supports the individual -- the individual character is born,not out of a wholesale rejection of the past because "I did not create it," but out of receiving what the past hands us, examining it, creatively adding to, correcting where we can, and refining our inheritence in some small way, and then handing on what we have received to the community of people called humanity.
Life is a conversation with the past and a struggle with it, not an outright rejection and refusal to closely examine it for what truth might be available in the struggles of our ancestors. It is mere hubris to assume I am the first person to wonder, "If God is perfect, why is there evil?" and so on -- it is sheer temerity to assert that only the flimsiest of answers to that and other questions I have heard from people within my own limited experience are the best answers anyone has ever given on these subjects.
Belief and unbelief BOTH take work if they are to truly be rational or reasonable. They BOTH take a knowledge of history and theology and philosophy -- and these are hard-won, not easy, not simple, and less simplistic matters.
In the end, I converted to the Roman Catholic Church -- later, I left it because of its intolerance of so many people with differences. Eventually, I became an Episcopalian, an Anglican, because that communion allows me to ask questions, respects my mind, and we by and large agree to disagree about many things while accepting one another and practicing our common liturgy inherited from the time of the Apostles.
I am a philosopher. I believe in God. I hold that a belief in God is not irrational or stupid, and I hold that the traditions of ancient Christianity and Judaism, from which Christianity emerged, are not superstitious, foolish, short-sighted, or best accepted on sheer blind faith.
Certainly, one may follow the herd and believe because "they" say to do so. But then again one may accept many scientific positions for the same reason, and many do -- they repeat, not because they fully understand why, but because the word "science" is magical for them and represents an alliance with something infallible and unquestionable.
Orthodox scientists do NOT do this; neither do orthodox Christians, Jews, or anyone else with a reasonable religious belief. The drive to memorize and parrot the letter of anything without knowing the spirit of truth in it is simply a general human failing born of laziness, a failing that can be located wherever humans are, whatever humans are doing; and the drive to criticize what one does not fully understand grants one a false sense of victory over a foe that does not even exist in the first place -- this is equally a failing born of laziness and a logical fallacy called a "straw man argument."
It is, thus, irrational, ironically.Very nice. You should have written this as a hub.
The fact is that, people who believe in evolution has not really understood it, neither can they explain many of the basic questions. If you ask them, they will say all started from a single cell. Where did this cell come from? Can someone explain the complexity of a single cell ? the evolution of complexity? Its not a random process that is happening inside a cell, every protein has specific roles to perform. If you ask any of these questions their answer will be: you are a stupid religions guy. You don't have any rational, no brain..............
Thanks for sharing your experience...I think you misunderstand the use of the term "cell" as it pertains to evolution.
This seems to be a vital misunderstanding to be able to say "belief" in evolution is exactly the same as "belief" in a god.....
Emdi has a great point, you should make a hub about this experience Richard. Please include the texts that you have found helpful in your journey, I would like to read them since they haven't been a part of my education.
I was an atheist and then the answer was obviously No.
Then I gained enlightenment and got my proof of god but I would say a rational individual must accept that god exists is a false statement.
You have the likes of Paraglider and Earnesthub on this forum , intelligent and well read, probably more than most believers on this forum and they dont believe god exists which is in a way proof that a rational individual doesn't have to believe in God. .I don`t really believe any person with a superior intellect truly is an athiest.They don`t go together.
There is really nothing rational or logical about god as he is beyond any rationality of logic.You will fail to understand god if you use your mind in any scientific way we know or any rational way.
Some atheists were rational enough to say kind words about my books rankings and understood me to a good extent even though they didn't believe in god .
Some believers called me lucifer because my work is ranked next to the Bible, Quran and Bhagwta Gita, what sort of rationality is that?
You have rational and logical believers as well as unbelievers.That is some genuine, honest christian-love right there.
My claim isn't that a rational person must believe in God. That would be misguided and mistaken. What I think is that there are good reasons to think a Deity exists --- and, given that, it is not unreasonable and a complete waste of time for a rational person to develop religious beliefs.
Conversely, having been, for a period, an atheist, I fully understand and respect why an intelligent person would be led to have no belief in any Deity. With one stipulation: Anyone who does not belive God exists should be, on principle, open to hearing out rational arguments in favor of God's existence -- to give them a fair hearing.
Then again, I think it is incumbent on those who believe in the existence of God to take seriously arguments and evidence that contradicts their positions as well.
Truth, inasmuch as it is truth, has nothing to fear from being challenged or questioned. Any position that sees itself as above hearing arguments that contradict or correct it -- atheist, theist, polytheist, pantheist, whatever -- is just dogma by another name, blind faith, no reason involved.
My best friend to this day is an atheist. The last thing I'd do is insult him by thinking he is less than intelligent for holding that position -- for him, it was the result of honest effort. We have wonderful, if at times consternating discussions -- but he is closer to me than blood kin and our separate beliefs do not drive us apart.
As Voltaire famously said, "I may not agree with what you say, but I would die to defend your right to say it." I respect the intellectual rights and consciences of all people that much -- but, in return, I expect the same courtesy.
I do not deny the intelligence of others in their beliefs -- do not deny mine.it is not unreasonable and a complete waste of time for a rational person to develop religious beliefs.
True this happened with me.
I do not deny the intelligence of others in their beliefs -- do not deny mine -
This is difficult have a look at some of the other forums there is this joker called marineallways ,a bouncer who thinks the prophets are arrogant idiots.
I showed him my work-books rankings and he just keeps mocking it and tells me to be self aware while he has no idea of the self.
This world is full of idiots who will call an intelligent one an idiot.
this has happened since eons.
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe. - Albert EinsteinYou gave me a good smile,there. Much truth in a few words.
The musician Frank Zappa once said, "The most common element in the universe isn't hydrogen, it's stupidity." He and old Al were on the same wavelength, I think!And we are also on the same wave length , debating with you is such a pleasure , no ugliness at all, thanks
Zappa is correct.And thank you -- there is no real anger in you. That is a good thing to encounter.
- I do get angry when abused as I am sick and tired of it but with someone like you I can have a rational debate which is a joy
Scholars since ages have been known to debate and it can be a healthy debate but this requires intelligence from both sides.
yes of course. we are living contradictions after all. one says, we can, others say we cannot. we say we can save the world, human needs says it's contrary. we say we are "free", but there is no such thing as "free". freedom, human needs, gradual destruction of the planet... i know one thing that can solve all these, human extinction. but we choose to live.
the whole human race is contradiction.It can be yes or no. However it depends upon personal believe and thinking.
Even those speaking of rational thinking are irrational in many places.
Big bang theory is not proved yet but it is considered scientific.
Denying God is basically a fashion. It has little to do with rationality.
Thanks,
Jyoti KothariI agree with your short answer. I am a rational person, and I also believe in GOD. People argue science and religion for an explanation of what existed, what exists, and what is to come. The only difference is when science fails to explain something, scientists say we haven't quite figured that out yet. While the religious rely on faith. I believe science is an attempt to explain what GOD created, but science will never completely fulfill the explanation of what GOD created.
Sir I'm a gay man. I love God but I hate religion because people use it as a weapon against me. God and religion are two complete different things. Cults are dangerous. God is love.
I writing to you the people in the forum because I do not have children. I am not a part of any religious group. Maybe some of you can do something about this.
While I was in a forum discussiing gay issues, a religious person started to attack me. Another person came to my defense, her name is Cosette. While she was talking with that person; the subject of brainwashing came up. She posted a link on the subject. I think everyone with children, and everyone that claims to have some type of belief in God, will do something about this Absolute Horror. For Gods Sake.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LACyLTsH4acDude, just rememeber, in the end, only GOD can judge you.
Thank you. I'm a man, I can take care of myself. These children really have no one protecting them.
I am an Episcopalian.
We have an openly gay bishop, Gene Robinson -- this caused some controversy in the more "evangelical" minority in our faith, but the majority stood up for him and for their gay friends and relatives that are as welcome at the Table of Our Lord as anyone else.
My church welcomes all people, period. Without judgment. It's an ideal we strive for.
We do not teach exclusion; we teach inclusion,tolernace, welcoming. It's one of the reasons I became an Episcopalian and why I both believe in God and practice a religious tradition.
There is no "brainwashing" going on in my particular faith, unless teaching our children to be acceting of all people is "brainwashing".
I know this is not the case in Fundamentalist sects and Right Wing Evangelical circles, even in some extremly conservative Catholic circles. I grew up in one of the most conservative and purist Holiness sects imaginable -- I lived a monk-like life, was not allowed to associate with people socially unless they were of similar beliefs, did not set foot in a movie theatre till I was 15 (3 years after I left that faith, it left such scars on my thinking). But light peeked in, I did have friends "on the side" with a variety of viewpoints -- I learned to think and decide for myself.
I certainly would not sell myself back into bondage after such an experience.
I am responding to you specifically because you used my post to bring your message, a genuine one. I expect no one to convert to my religion or any religion -- each of us has her or his own path. Mine just happened to lead the way it did, and I don't regret it presently.
Dear Richard,
It is terrible that for so many years you were not introduced with Islam-The Ultimate Art of Living for the whole of Mankind. The church did'nt showed you any of the Biblical verses which predicts about the last and final messenger Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Your Holy Bibles direct towards Islam very clearly. Islam is the only religion which answers any of the philosophical questions very perfectly, in search of which people made the lives of themselves and others miserable.
I too had gone through many stages and questions which irritated me but whenever i compared the answers of Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism and other ISM based philosophical ideologies; i found Islam to be in a tip top position with balanced approaches to any of the problems or issues related to indivisual or society.Hopefully the door is still open to the supernatural things of God. God is alsome! Ask God to prove to you he is real.
Many years ago, when I didn't know what I now know, I prayed to GOD, because I was part of religion. I asked him to end my life.
I prayed for 6 years. I asked priests, "Why he wouldn't answer my prayer?"
The priest said, "He won't take your life, you must give your life to him."
Right then and there....I knew GOD didn't exist. And I began researching.
Which lead to my enlightenment of life and the reality of "GOD" was a lie.
It hurt, I was angry. But, then I realized, I am a self-responsible person. I have a consciousness, which tells me I am alive. I know what's right and wrong, because I understand life.
Context of what the priest told me, "Suicide" was the only option. And if "GOD" was arrogant enough to force me to destroy what he supposedly created....then he couldn't possibly be, what "religion" portrays him to be.If everything is subjective. How can you really trust your conclusion. You don't a priest to tell you about God just go to God. Ask with sincerely “Are you there God?, If so reveal yourself. I want to know you, and just prepare yourself you for a true enlightenment. Unfortunately, I fear your heart in too hardened for logic and all you have is subjective babble.
It is simple enough. We do not believe the bible.
"all that I do, ye to can do"
www.the10thjesus.org
Some have questions, yet get no answers.
Others have answers, but get asked no questions.
The truth will set YOU free.
How about giving me the long answer why "No" is the only acceptable response?
Pithy is cute. But it is often unhelpful in a serious consideration of any subject.Are you actually looking for a serious consideration of the subject?
You asked and answered your own question with a rather rambling diatribe on your various dabblings in a wide varieties of religions but did not actually posit any rational reason for believing in a god. You also made a standard assumption that "god exists" with all the questions you asked yourself.
"I hold that a belief in God is not irrational," does not really make a rational argument other than stating another absolute.
Just because you hold that a belief in god is not irrational, will not make it so and that is all you have really stated.And your argument to the contrary was . . .? I don't see it. Maybe part of your post was cut off? Show me how to make the argument -- I'm a bit weak in this area.
Let's put it this way. You have made a statement:
"I hold that a belief in God is not irrational."
This is an absolute statement with nothing whatsoever to back it up. Yet you are asking me to refute it?
This sounds awfully like, "There is no 100% proof that God does not exist, therefore He does."
You are the one needing to justify a wholly irrational belief.
Please be my guest. Once you have done so, I will happily refute it. Let's start with - "there is absolutely no evidence of a God," shall we?Why would there be evidence of a God? Why does he have to back up his belief? Prove to me God doesn't exist!
I think I can back up my belief and show that it is, at the very least, not unreasonable. But you are right -- I offered no proof and any attack on my position really does need to be followed with a proof God can't exists and that I am a total fool.
Evolution Guy, however, is being coy. So, maybe he will tell me his answer to that question if I ask him a few questions in return.Can you prove God does not exist? I can't prove that he does, and I don't believe anyone can prove he doesn't, but constantly calling Christians irrational for their beliefs is irrational.
I don't think anyone has ever offered a completely irrefutable proof God exists, and no one may ever be able to. But there are proofs that strongly suggest He is possible, and those arguments are better, I think, than the arguments that He does not. But I agree -- calling a Christian or anyone else "irrational" for having a belief is a knee-jerk, emotionalistic response without offering good evidence and argument to the contrary to go along with the claim.
I think the whole point of Christianity is to believe in something that is larger than oneself, it is the absence of proof that I find the most interesting.
And that is one position in the Christian faith -- the "What hath Athens to do with Jerusalem" position of Tertullian in the early Church.
There are other positions in Christianity, though. Starting before, but especially personified in St.Augustine, is the position that Athens and Jerusalem have a lot in common and need one another. In other words, it is not a matter of reason vs. faith, but that humans need both reason and faith to live well and discover who they should be.
That's better.
I never claimed I was going to prove anything with what I said in my post. It was a statement of belief and a narrative of the journey i took to get to that end.
Think of it as if I issued a challenge -- "Here's my square of land I'm willing to defend; do you want to dispute my claim?"
I suppose you do, then.
Let's begin with the preliminaries:
Define "God." When we say "God" or "god," what do we mean?
If we are not talking about the same concept, this will take much more time than it needs to.You have already defined God. Although I do not claim to be an expert in religion, you said, "Eventually, I became an Episcopalian, an Anglican," so that is where we must start.
But - we digress from your original statement that a rational person can believe in God.
And you have yet to justify this position. There is no evidence of the Anglican God. Yet you still believe. In spite of the absolute lack of evidence. You are even prepared to reject all the other Gods - for which there is an equal lack of evidence.
Now explain it in a rational manner.No. We are going to start from this position:
When we say "God," what do we mean?
What is the bare, minimal definition of God. I'm not interested in arguing anyone should be an Anglican or anything else. I am interested in arguing that God, insofar as the concept of God has commonalities across all faiths and all philosophies, has an accepted definition.
I want to be sure you and I are talking about the same concept.
Failure toget our definition right at the outset will lead to a discussion that is a waste of everyone's time. It has already gone on a few posts too long.
I asked a simple question; please try to give me a simple (or complex) response, I don't care which. Otherwise, move along as you are not interested in having a serious conversattion with me and these boards contain other playgrounds for you.I don't understand. You went so far as to explain that you believe in God. You believe in the Anglican God and this is rational.
Now you are using the only tool available to you. And a popular one amongst your kind.
SEMANTICS
Yet you expect a rebuttal.
As I stated in the beginning, this sounds awfully like, "There is no proof that God does not exist, therefore He does and I do not need to justify that."
And you were oddly dissatisfied with my simple answer:I simply want a purely philosophical definition of God from you. That's all. I will begin by being willing to defend the position that, by philosophy, reason alone, I can show God is possible if not likely to exist -- that the argument for God is better than any philosophical, rational argument you can come up with to the contrary.
Tall order. I'll try it for you, though, if you'll simply provide me with a rational definition of what we're to mean when we say "God."
This is important for the reason that, if when you are saying "God" you mean some sort of entity that is logically impossible by definition, I'm wasting my time talking with you. You have already defined God out of existence and anything I say to you will be wasted breath.
No, you do not have to believe God exists to define him. We define imaginary beings all the time -- hippogryph, unicorn, basilisk -- and we know perfectly well what we're talking about, even if we have no proof they exists or belief in them.
So give me a definition of God that is rational so we can begin. This is the one price I charge for admission to the show. It's called, in philosophy, "coming to terms," not "semantics." We haven't even gotten far enough along to argue about semantics as you have given no evidence that, when you use the word "God," you really have any idea what you mean.
For you, so far, it has been more of a noise than a word.You have already defined YOUR god. And stated that it is rational to believe in this god. Now you are using SEMANTICS. There IS NO rational definition of God.
I do not believe in God. You do.
Therefore it is your responsibility to define this god.
Oddly - you do not want to do so. Yet you state it is reasonable to have a belief in this god that you defined once (Anglican god).
And now it is somehow MY responsibility to define this creature that I do not believe in.
So, It is logical to assume you are just looking for a fight as the rest of the believers seem to be doing.
Any time you care to define this God that you believe in and back that up with a rational argument I will happily rebut that argument.
Sounds like - "There is no 100% proof that God does not exist, therefore He does and I do not need to defend that."Does love exist? Can you see it? Can you define it? Can you offer any physical evidence of it existing? Yet you feel it right? You experience it? That is God.
Here is the very definition of Him
1 Corinthians 13 (New International Version)
Love (God)
1If I speak in the tongues[a] of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames,[b] but have not love, I gain nothing.
4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
8Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
13And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.But in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven you must become like a child again, right?
Odd that you seem so filled with hate. And ruining a perfectly good discussion quoting from a book that is beyond your ken.
And the question is not "Does Love exist." It is "Can A Rational Individual Believe In God?"
I think you have answered that with your irrational and irrelevant statements.
Sounds like you like to insult instead of discuss. Again, there is no reason why you cannot define even an imaginary being -- a unicorn is a one-horned, horse-ike being that will only come to virgin females of pure character. Do they exist (uh, the unicorns,I mean)? No. But it was not so hard to define them, and rationally.
This is precise why I required this one, small favor from you. You do have a definition of God -- God is an irrational being who is self-contradictory and that is meaningless to discuss.
Using this definition, how is anything I say to you going to be heard?
I refuse to waste my time in philosophical discussion based on such a mis-definition of the subject. You and I could sooner have a meaningful discussion of unicorns than God . . . because you do not wish to have a reasonable discussion of this subject.
To put this into terms you, perhaps, could understand -- Let's say I attacked your belief in evolution (I wouldn't, but we're pretending). You said, "OK, let's discuss it" -- but required me to define evolution before we begin, just to make certain I'm not using some cockamammie misdefinition which, as we both know, are out there.
Let's say I refuse. I keep repeating back yo you -- "No, you define it," and "No, I don't have to reveal my conceptions of the subject," and finally, "No, there is NO rational definition of evolution. It just doesn't exist."
What would you or old Chuck Darwin do? If you had any sense, and Darwin, at least, did, you'd refuse to talk to me till I offered something a little less shrill.
That's what I'm doing with you, Evolution Boy. Come back when you want to show me a little respect, even grudgingly, and take me seriously. Otherwise, we're done here.And there we have it in a nutshell.
You make a baseless claim that you are not prepared to substantiate in any rational way and pass the onus to some one else to disprove your irrational claim.
You then demand respect while at the same time disrespecting me.
This is how religionists always do it. And no - your agenda is clear. You are attempting to justify a wholly irrational belief in the Anglican God which you are now using semantics to suggest I should not be able to say does not exist becaus ewe both agree we cannot define that which you believe in.
So - Now this begs the question:
Can a rational person believe in something they cannot define yet are prepared to name?
The short answer is "no".
Once again.
But I am sure if you say "yes" over and over and over and over - you will convince me that you irrational belief in an undefinable deity is perfectly rational.
Respect needs to be earned. You seem to assume an irrational belief in a deity automatically deserves respect. As I mentioned - it appears you are just here for a fight - the same as all the other religionists. So - yes, we are done. You have gone no way in convincing anyone of anything other than the fact that you have a blind belief in the Anglican god which you are ready to fight for.A) You're several pages late. I left you behind long ago and went on to speak with people who might be interested in acting in an adult fashion. For them, I posted a rational argument in favor of the existence of God.
B) My self-worth and self-respect isn't tied up in impressing you or earning anything from you.
C) The term, "the Anglican God" makes about as much sense as "the Purple God" or "the Corn Beef Hash God." There is a God worshipped by Anglicans, but He is not our property. He is worshipped by many and by many names -- or no name or title. There is no God made up by Anglicans "out of the blue." There is God as encountered through my religion and in our theology, but God is always more than that.How wonderfully condescending of you. Sorry I am on a different time zone to yourself and did not respond in a timely manner.
He does not exist. And repeating the same thing ad infinitum is not "posting a rational argument."
I never mentioned your "self respect." Clearly you have an extremely high opinion of yourself. I was talking about the respect you were demanding from me.
I never mentioned "out of the blue" either. Like all religionists though - semantics is your forte. Seems to go with the territory.I have a high enough sense of self-respect to realize one thing: Someone who begins a discussion by implicitly defining me as an idiot will not be pleased, impressed, or convinced by anything I ever say. I could be Albert Einstein and you would dismiss out of hand anything I have to say.
And how completely lazy of you -- I have posted, somewhere yesterday afternoon, a formal rational argument for the existence of God which you did not bother to go look for before making another attack.
Why? You never came here to see if I was capable of being rational.You came here in hopes of making me lose my temper, wildly quote scriptures, yell, whine, &c.
Sorry. No show for you. Is this how Darwin would have conducted himself?
At this point, the sole reason I am responding to you is that you may as well be a poster child for why adult conversations on these boards between people of different beliefs degenerate into noise and nonsense.
Hopefully, people are paying attention to you for all the **right** reasons.Attack? You are using semantics - very well I might add.
I am uncertain as to your goals other than perhaps generate a personal attack by dodging the questions posed and attacking me in this passive-aggressive fashion.
You have not yet added one rational argument for a belief in "The Anglican God," that you worship:
"Eventually, I became an Episcopalian, an Anglican, because that communion allows me to ask questions, respects my mind, and we by and large agree to disagree about many things while accepting one another and practicing our common liturgy inherited from the time of the Apostles."
But any time you care to add a rational argument that does not make the assumption that "god" exists.- I will cheerfully dispel it.
Until such times....... feel free to be Battered by the vicious, unwarranted attack I just threw in your face.
Sorry I came late. The faith in God is here for 6000 years. Then Mr. Darwin came and people assumed that there is an evolution and there is no God. Since you are late (200 years plus) you must make points of proof. We do not claim we have a proof we heave the faith.
No matter if my 15 year-old son created it last week and wrote the Bible from scratch off the top of his head with an old crayon, that does not address whether it contains any truth worth paying attention to.
The origins of anything are not so much an issue as their meaning.Their meanings along with the entire bible is for control through 1 belief. It has nothing to do with a divine being. All it does is make you debate from realizing it's true purpose.
If this **had** been the intention -- and a knowledge of history would teach one that the Bible dies not have "one origin," but many --that intention is a miserable failure.
Why? Those books collected in the Bible have inspired myriad beliefs, NOT just one belief, many at complete variance with one another. Most of the posts by you that I see on these boards, in fact, are just as much a product of being influenced by a peculiar interpretation of scriptures as any other "belief."Was the bible not meant to group belief into 1? I believe religions separated in search of individualism of belief. Impossible to have with a grouped belief.
Just another proven that the bible is not divine. It is meant for 1 belief, the others came from interpretations. If the bible was divine, there wouldn't be a need for interpretation or faith.
The bible, A divine government.
I would like to get your thoughts on another thread if you have time to read. I go into more detail.
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/23519
Read me very carefully.
I never said I have proof my faith is rational. What I think I have is a good, rational argument that my faith is not irrational to hold and not foolish -- it is fit for a thinking person, meaningful, not a waste of time. It squares up with much of what we can know by reason, is not opposed to the various sciences, philosophy, history, mathematics, and so forth.
I think, even without religious faith, a purely rational, secular person has reason to suspect a God exists.
Did it, somewhere back between pages 12 and 20, I think, and elaborated on my explanation.
My explanation was ignored, side-stepped, and I was insulted for the effort.Really?
Interesting definitions of the words "ignored," "side stepped" and "insulted."
Hello people,
I just wanted to jump in here for a minute, just so I get the gist- you two are debating about belief in God?
Someone has belief in God. I read the opening hub and found the reading nicely written, a few mistakes and makes for an honest read.
How ever, why in the world would to people debate about a non-existent entity, never known to exist. There is nothing anywhere that says "Humankind" answers to anyone.
We don't answer to anyone, but ourselves. You have a human consciousness and can make decisions. That's all you're required to do.
If you want to jump in to religion or churchs, please step off, they are nothing but a bunch of branches of the #1 hook-line and sinker "Business" on the planet. Relgion makes more money than 90% of the World economies put together.
You want a suckers bet....religion. Great reading, bad interpretation. Completely out of context!
Sorry. But, I did enjoy reading what you wrote.
Have fun people.Thank you. Seriously. I can actually enjoy -- and understand perfectly -- the spirit in which this is written and intended.
What would be considered evidence of God's existence exactly? What would be considered as evidence of lifeforms on other planets? The criteria used to measure credible evidence in support of lifeforms on other planets should be the same criteria used to measure the evidence weighed in support of God's existence: If we have the courage to be consistent. If we found evidence of a civilization on the Moon we would conclude that there must have been life on the moon at some point in time in the moons history. So if I conclude that there is a Creator after observing the marvels of the human heart, the human brain, DNA, photosynthesis, precipitation, and many other precise operations necessary for life and also life on this planet I doubt to think that I am being unreasonable.
Anything really. Except - "oh look at that - a tree - that proves I am too ignorant to understand how that could come into being without an invisible super being that gave us His one son to save us from Sin that we are born into - But only if you grovel to the super being."
Dear oh dear. Sorry you have decided to waste your life and the only thing that makes you feel better is scaring other people into believing in jeebus too.
Well done. You must be very proud. Especially being a money lender consultant and all.You say anything would be acceptable as evidence. Well by definition "anything" would very include the tree you just mentioned. So again, what would meet the criteria of acceptable evidence? And please be a little more precise & spare me your games, I don't have all day, I have to do some more loans soon
Odd. See - the tree - well that is proof that the TREE god exists.
Or are u saying that the TREE god - who sent his only daughters (400,00000000 of them) to have sex with the tree monster to prove that we are all dead in reality - is the same as your god who was Zeus?
Or - you can provide any sOrt of proof really.
Anytime.
Waiting.
Whenever.
You being in touch with God and all - you already know whatr will work.
Any of the biblical proofs is fine.
Yeah,
Whenever...........Why should I consider that?
I am not some Japanese peasant with no education and a propensity for guilt.
No. Actually the snowflake evolved over millions of years from what the ancients referred to as cornflakes.
Wow! what a great honest post! Refreshing! I believe that you are still open to something while the search is continuing. Dwelling in the unknown is a scary place that few choose because of the comfortable state most like to live in.
I also believe and continue to understand what I can without being deterred by the easy answer and the complacy that brings. The ancient Incas who where masters at math were the first to introduce the value of "0" to mathmatics. That is a hard reality and took awhile to understand. The absense of something still having value.
In the absense of true knowledge I find it comforatable to believe in possibility. Much knowledge can make you weary and cynical but possibility opens you up to learn and make great gains in your understandings.
All I can say is wait and see what is learned on your journey.Thank you very much, Rhamson. That was the true spirit of how I offered the post.
Wow! what a great honest post! Refreshing! I believe that you are still open to something while the search is continuing. Dwelling in the unknown is a scary place that few choose because of the comfortable state most like to live in.
I also believe and continue to understand what I can without being deterred by the easy answer and the complacy that brings. The ancient Incas who where masters at math were the first to introduce the value of "0" to mathmatics. That is a hard reality and took awhile to understand. The absense of something still having value.
In the absense of true knowledge I find it comforatable to believe in possibility. Much knowledge can make you weary and cynical but possibility opens you up to learn and make great gains in your understandings.
All I can say is wait and see what is learned on your journey.A guy in a white robe that lives on a cloud and eternally cooks sinners for dinner? Sure, a rational individual can believe that
Nice pic Misha! I like that one the best so far.
Well... besides the Saint Misha pic anyways.LOL Thanks Sandy, trying to do my best to impress you
Well, most people here seem to presume just that, when speaking of "God".
However, if you do not insist on God having this form, and rather are talking about the power that is way bigger than what we can comprehend, I frankly don't see how a rational person can deny it's existence.
Maybe how you describe it sounds a bit far fetched if you take the literal translation but how do you proove the emotion of love but through feelings? Sure you can say I did this and that to proove my love but it still is something that cannot be prooven but through action and not text books. Why can't the possibility of God exist by merely believing in it?
Love and Christian god don;t go together well.
Two different subjects. Is the belief in God predicated by a belief in the ministry of Jesus the Christ? I don't think so. If it were true than more people would believe in one religion exclusively.
Is there a possibility that there is a God for lack of an agreed term? No proof either way. You either believe in a way that is comforatable to you or you don't. I choose to believe in God based on my life experiences and whether there is a true way to manifest it I dwell in the I don't know. I study all and give possibility to all as a choice. I won't hold your belief against you and won't try judge or demean your belief or non belief.
I've heard TV preachers refute evolutionists and atheists with quips like, "maybe your grandaddy was a monkey but my grandaddy was an engineer with a college education." And as someone who believes in a divine creator I always thought they sounded dumb because they painted a picture of evolutionists that is dishonest and absurd. That kind of juvenile rhetoric demeans the one presenting it and that person usually doesn’t get it. They just keep walking along through life with that same silly grin all over their face thinking they’ve said something really witty while everyone rolls their eyes and groans.
Misha, God is real. As a survivor of a deadly crash, he was not only there with me, but showed me the ENTIRE accident before it happened and promised me I would be fine! I not only heard him, but saw him as well- very powerful and NO One will ever convince me God is not real. Keep searching, he will find you!
Why god would help you and save you, and don't save millions of hungry babies in Africa, for example? Why are you so important? Can't you see the arrogance in what you said?
Glad you lived but I don't buy it. Do you still see and talk to God?
Why did God favor you and not innocent children born with deadly diseases?
Oh, wait a minute... it's a red robe right? A robe covered in blood.
LOL Have you ever been to Christian church Aya? They have a lot pics depicting their deity, ya know.
You ever look in a physics textbook? They've got a lot of mathematical formulas depicting theoretical particles they cannot and will never see.
Having a symbolic representation of something one cannot experience with the senses is hardly far-fetched for rational beings.Unfortunately, most of the Christians seem to take this symbolic literally, including those who draw the pictures.
Yes, but we do not define a subject by those least qualified to understand it.
Take on the strongest, not the weakest.On that level Judeo-Christian bunch seem to overcomplicate things comparing say to zen. You probably were brought up Christian, so Christian terminology and symbolic are more natural for you to use, but for a person brought up without any religion - like me - eastern philosophies make much more sense.
Which is fine, but even Buddhists have religious art and many followers of Buddah take those images and symbols literally -- even though the philosophy of the Buddha gives no reason to do so. If I made remarks about eastern philosophy based on the worst or most ignorant representatives, it would be quite easy to dismiss the whole thing.
I've done some of those "pictures" and I can tell you that it isn't "most Christians" that take them literally. In the Orthodox Church there exists an extensive system of symbols to be used carefully and exactly in order to indicate different themes, events and persons important to the faith. And while our ascension icon includes both a "cloud" and a white robe - the nimbus (the cloud) is actually there to indicate that no one saw this event take place and the white robe is a symbol of the purity and divinity of Christ. Catholicism has a similar system of symbols, even if they are a bit less particular about its application. And the Anglicans, by and large have an understanding of God that includes a more nuanced view than eating sinners for supper. Many Protestants do too.
Of the estimated 2.1 billion Christians on the planet, 50% of them are Catholic, 11% of them are Eastern Orthodox and I believe 4% are Anglican. Which brings the tally to 65% of Christians whose church would reject your caricature of God. Of course, then there are the iconoclastic sects of Protestantism who would reject it on the very basis of its being an image - too much danger that someone will take it literally.
I think that more accurately put the statement would have to read: "Most Evangelical American Christians take this symbolism literally".
Please be careful when you lump us all together as simply "Christians". I want to kick some of them off the team just as badly as they'd like to throw out the Pope and Patriarchs.
- pgrundyposted 14 years ago
0The question is, can a rational individual believe in God? Yes. Why? Because reason and religion are more similar philosophically than they are different. Reason is really just secular religion.
Both systems start from a position of raw belief, both embrace determinism and causality as the main ways to explain how the world works, and if you trace reason back to Descartes you see the direct historical relationship with religion there too.
Reason is basically religion's rebellious secular brother. Reason and religion always look like they are fighting because they are trying to occupy the same piece of intellectual turf. It's sibling rivalry.
People like to talk about how irrational religion is, yet logic sets some very arbitrary rules that are based on not much beyond the fact that you need those rules to make logic work. If that's not arbitrary, what is?
Talking about God as a big guy in the sky degrades the discussion but this is the internet after all, not Harvard.
I mean, we're here to degrade the discussion. If we had something valuable to say we'd be curing cancer or running a church or something.It's just the song that never ends as it goes on and on... Reasonable and rational concept, there was a beginning. Irrational and unreasonable concept, there was a beginning and in the beginning was a magical superior being who looked and talked and walked like Jesus who spoke the world he was already sitting in, into existence.
Reasonable and rational concept... belief. From one "thing" came all things. Irrational and unreasonable concept... belief, that one thing was a man who had the ability to even speak his own self without a mouth into existence. - you're so very right!
But I'll leave my point of view participating in this degradation :
A man is not "rational" just because he would like to.
A man is driven by most different forces and rationality is
a relatively recent invention.
Evolution left ancestral layers in living creature's nervous systems.
The history of creation leaves it's marks across time.
A man is not an exception to this.
A bit rational, a bit supersticious, there's no major incompatibility in that.
Never expect men to be an achieved, finished product.
A 21st century man becomes adult after having gone through phases of evolution same as an aborigene.
And a 21st century child experiences the same pulsions as a child from the paleolithic.
Nowdays man is a creature that tries to run 21st century software on a hardware dating from cro-magnon.
Discussions like this, can be explained by that fact.
We're looking for something and often turn around in circles.
So, I may build solid concrete bridges that will last for centuries or rockets that go to the moon,
have a beautiful wife and beautiful children, an affectuous dog
and still not having my soul fulfilled just with knowledge and happyness...
In this sense, I would admit that a rational man can have methaphysical beliefs.
- Just Joyceposted 14 years ago0
A rational person can believe in a god/pantheon. Claiming to know that there is a god (any god) in some sort of quantifiable way however would run contrary to rationalism as it is generally understood.
I believe that there's a god, the Christian one, in fact, but I don't know that I'm correct, nor can I prove his existence. I don't think that makes me irrational. One can be thoughtfully religious.
But those of us that are, or try to be, don't make for good television or news headlines so we're not the face of religion that gets the most attention.So your saying you are irrational? Maybe I misunderstood what you just wrote.
No, I'm not. I'm a rational person. The sky is blue, gravity works, and dinosaurs are not a conspiracy to trick people into thinking that the Earth is older than it is.
I'm trying to point out that there's a difference between belief and knowledge. I cannot prove that God exists using evidence and/or logic, therefore, I cannot know that God exists. But, I can believe that God exists based on my experience, culture and certain personal observation about history and man's attachment to ritual. Holding a belief does not entail that I be able to prove that belief to be true.
It's a little like voting. If I decide to vote for the challenger, who has never served, then I can't really look into his voting record, or past service as a politician. So, I can't know in advance that he is going to deliver on all his promises - I can't prove it - but I can believe he will without being irrational.
Or, I've never been to China. I've heard people talk about it, I've seen photos. But I've also heard people discuss Tolkien's Middle Earth, and I saw the movies. Technically, I cannot prove either's existence, but I believe nonetheless that China exists in this world and that Middle Earth exists only in the imagination. All without being irrational.
It's sorta the same thing with religious beliefs; I can't know that there's a god, but I can believe it.So - it is irrational?
Even to the point that you are making comparisons to suggest that God is the same as China.
There are "God" restaurants on every street corner. With small, "god" people speaking "god's language" and telling you that the Great Wall of god Is there on the satellite images....
God - China - exactly the same thing.
Perfectly rational.
Believe in one - you MUST believe the other. Same thing really......NO! It's not the same as China, oy where do you get your beliefs from?
Everyone knows it is the same as Brazil. Brazil not China... oh wait maybe it was Taiwan...Obviously, I'm not being clear. So, I'll try once more to articulate my point. I don't think that my inability to rationally prove that God exists is mutually exclusive to holding the belief that he does. It would, however, be mutually exclusive to saying that I know he does.
No - you are being perfectly clear.
You have no rational basis for believing in god.
You just do.
Why try to rationalize it?Just logic. Do you think it is rational that something developed by itself (I give you trillion years)? Then you must believe computer evolved by itself. ]
- Scott.Lifeposted 14 years ago0
I think in the end part of the difficulty in proving the existence of God, is that we are always speaking from a standpoint of what we BELIEVE, is it rational always? NO, some of my faith in God has come from some of the most irrational things and times in my life. But we also remember that for hundreds of years the most rational people in science knew that the earth was the center of the Universe and that it was definitely flat, based on their observations. To the unbeliever faith is irrational but to the believer to not have it is irrational. I have faith that if i turn the faucet on there will be water, based on my observations. Just as I base my faith in God on what I have observed in my life. How can I tell anyone about their own faith though when I have no clue about what they have observed, it would be like telling a plane crash victim that air travel is safe. This continued effort to somehow belittle both believer and non and to establish a rule for creditability is sick and stupid and more importantly a waste of time. If you believe then good for you now go live your life and show your faith by your deeds, if you don't believe hey good for you too, now go live your life and stop worrying about all the lost irrational believers, why do you care anyway?
I would love to see one proven fact based sentence by either party to demonstrate their claims, in the absence of that it is all just one revolving circle of theories and beliefs. Learn to accept your own thoughts and stop trying to transfer your views onto another, that's what kids are for.Nice try but once again this is from your perspective and not something even a believer would have to accept, see the problem now, I could just as easily answer that the whole world is proof of God, To believers this would be true to you its not.
Not really. Unless you are saying that "evidence" is all a matter of perspective. Therefore Santa Claus is real......
Santa Clause is real. I caught him kissing my mom when I was a kid and noticed his shoes. I didn't realize at the time that Santa Clause was really my dad but his Nike's were a dead giveaway.
Here's one for you I believe in God and evolution and think both support the other, as far as evidence, there are millions of children who believe in Santa Clause, and millions believed until recently that ours was the only star with planets around it, given the evidence, that's the thing evidence is always changing along with theories, and .....beliefs.
You tell me since you seem to know how a a man god who didn't exist can speak himself into existence.
Thats your answer? Wouldn't a God be able to "speak himself into existence? But if something does not exist it certainly can't evolve, Doh
And that is your answer? Because you believe that god can speak himself into existence therefore he must exist and thus you are applying the same reason to evolution but saying what does not exist cannot evolve? You really do not understand evolution, so why do you speak against it as though you have all the answers?
You make about as much cents as a soda can.Where have I ever said I believe god exists? That is your assumption, if a God existed he would be able to speak himself into existence, thats what Gods do! Nothing can evolve from nothing, thats just facts. Soda can wins!
You just don't get it. Read closely and follow along...
"if god existed he would be able to speak himself into existence".
Keep reading until you get it.Yeah, I got it, and? Your assumption that I was a Christian is the first flaw in your argument, the second is that evolution could create something from nothing. Using the all knowing, all seeing, all everything view of God he could exist as nothing and then appear as something. Get it?
Now you are making an assumption. You assume that I thought you were christain. It actually didn't cross my mind. What crossed my mind was the idiology in your own assumptions. Second, you assume that my understanding must be the same as your understanding of evolution.
In which case, you are using the joke I left as you basis for debate which leads me to make a real assumption, you have no sense of humor. And you obviously still do not get it.
"if god existed he would be able to speak himself into existence". -says Texan
"second is that evolution could create something from nothing" -says Texan
So you really don't get it yet. Just keep reading it over and over again until you do.My sense of humor is fine, thats why I'm on this thread at all. I never said that evolution could create something from nothing, you said maybe Evolution created God, I just asked how
Evolution is a scientific fact. But let's start burning a few witches (scientists) if that will make you feel less worthless and hate ridden.I guess the tonnes of scientific evidence that has been assembled by our greatest minds is not as believable to some as an invisible hateful deity?
The fact that evolution happens is not in dispute. There are millions of facts that prove evolution happens.
What do you know about evolution?So it doesn't matter what you know or don't know about evolution, you have just decided it doesn't happen.
What made you come to the conclusion that the scientific community is lying to you?
And yes - there are millions of verifiable, testable, measurable facts that prove evolution happens. The theory as to "how" or even "why" is another matter.For this conversation I would say it is much more important for those who would say that evolution is a fact to substantiate that fact with some credentials.
Are you a biologist?Well, rather than share my personal details online - here is some further reading for you:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news … ution.html
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/ … heory.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9 … ution.html
Nicely turned away from the real point of the conversation though. Just as a matter of interest - what credentials will make you change your mind?
And if you genuinely want my credentials rather than just changing the direction of the conversation away from the real question - please send me a PM through my profile.The topic is about rational. You say that evolution is a fact. I am curious what credentials you have to make that declaration - not Natgeo. You.
It has been made clear in this forum that creationists do not rest on science for their belief in origins.
If you believe in evolution surely you can give us more than dogmatic statements and some links to articles written by people whom you apparently trust in for the truth.
What is your rational argument to support evolution? I presume this will take some scientific knowledge so I ask that you give your credentials as well.I see - so you feel comfortable stating that you do not need to have any credentials to state that evolution does not happen and you will not accept any statements made by impartial sources as acceptable - yet I must prove my credentials to you.
Please tell me what credentials you will find acceptable. If it so happens that I possess acceptable credentials - please PM me and I will share them privately with you.
But - I think you have adequately answered the OP's question.I don't think you see. This is on topic. I don't care if it doesn't happen. I will gladly admit that I accept the Creator by faith.
I only ask that you present a rational argument that proves evolution is a scientific fact. It is not intellectually honest to disregard one belief as irrational if you cannot hold up your own belief by the same standard.
As for acceptable credentials how could I, an irrational person of faith, judge that. I am just asking a simple question. Is it rational for you to believe in the theory of evolution?This is on topic. The OP stated -
"Can a Rational Individual Believe in God?"
You do not have a rational argument for believing in god and have just admitted so. That answers the question.
"No"
As for proving evolution - it is already proven - now you disprove it.I don't think I would be much good at disproving evolution. Just as you haven't disproved a divine Creator. You have simply stated that to believe in such a person is irrational. This debate is impossible since scientific proof of the spiritual and divine is impossible and proof against it is impossible.
But the irrational man that I am, I will take a stab at presenting, not a refutation of evolution, but an argument for its proponent's irrational nature.
What was the most basic form of life from which we are supposed to have evolved?I'm guessing you should at least go read Evolution Guys profile first!
So - you do not have to have any rationale to believe in a divine creator, but you do need absolute proof to believe measurable scientific data?
Good job dragging out the old "You cannot disprove god therefore He is real" argument. Well done. Very rational of you.No, you don't have to have scientific rational (presuming there is another kind). You have to have faith. But, yes, according to you and others who have posted it seems to be the consensus that absolute proof is lacking from the creationism position so I would ask for the same to be present in the proof of yours.
I didn't do any dragging. I don't presume to try to prove God or anything spiritual. As I said, I believe by faith - not science. And I thought we covered how irrational I am.
I would like to know about those earliest life forms. What were they?Still you are dancing around the poll. I do not have problem to give my credentials in public, sir. Evolution theory I faced in 6 decade. I want to now what was discovered to have tangible facts. Still you cannot provide it. Faith and believe in God was here for 6000 years now it is your term to prove your evolution facts.
The creators of government God did an excellent job. An excellent job does not equal divine. They created a 1 system belief tied into the believers emotions that can only be proven wrong by logic. There is no logic when faith and interpretation contradict logic. The only logic is that a 1 system belief contradicts the individual mind from acting like an animal by giving it something to follow and believe. Welcome to bible study. It's not found in your scriptures.
It's proven that we are made mostly of water. The bible says we were created from simply dust. Do you really need more?
With all this water and dust, I can see why my thinking gets a little muddy sometimes.
Q.Dust is actually a correct statement, because water is made from Hydrogen and Oxygen. The word dust can be used as a general term for particles atomic and sub atomic, which in this case eventually creates the water molecule.
Did you learn that from the bible or science?
I learned that from science. One can learn a lot from science. It even brings you closer to GOD.
Your biblical god contradicts science. Do you heal your child with faith or science? If your god created science, what would be the point of science? Why didn't your god create medicine so we wouldn't have to create science? Why doesn't your god just heal sick children if he will go as far as intervene with science and medicine. Ignorance. Ask yourself questions before you state your absolute beliefs.
My GOD created everything. What is, what was, and what will be. Everything you see is created by some scientific make up. Science attempts to explain what it is. I don't want to get to crazy with science, but "science" wasn't created. It's just a method of learning about things, and trying to offer explanations. There is nothing wrong with science.
I don't know why my GOD doesn't just heal all the sick children. I do know that in the BIBLE GOD curses generations, destroys cities, and condemns. Like I said, faith for religion, and facts for science.
Also, my GOD did create medicine. It just took science to try to explain, and piece it together.- you worship a government god. Keep the faith.
If your god created medicine, why didn't he create life without the need for medicine?
I'm sorry, I over looked this question. I don't know why.
Your bible has numerous pages directing how to build temples, but didn't cover this question? Did you fill in the gaps with faith?
No interpretation to give me something to believe?You can pick and choose scripture, passages, stories, parables etc.. from the BIBLE to support or debunk many questions, and concerns. What's written is written. I look at the BIBLE as a whole. It is a book on how to live your life, and have faith. GOD didn't intend for us to live forever in the physical form. Everything you ask about is explained from the first bite of the forbidden fruit, to casting out Satan from Heaven. Not everything on earth is supposed to be peaches and cream. There are many references in the BIBLE that say if you are a Christian you will suffer. It's just the way it is. That is why we have choice and free will.
Do you believe you can stone people to death ? That's in the Law in the Old Testament
My friend ediggity, you tell that you can not choose what to belive but believe all passsage. The bible order his people in the Old Test. to stone diferent type of sinner...Do you believe you have to follow that Law?
My friend dentist 83. That is just what it sounds like. The Old Testament. Please read my post about picking and choosing scripture to support or debunk statements. This is a classic example. The lord Jesus Christ came to die for our sins, and brought the New Testament. Personally, I've never been one to turn down a good old fashion stoning.
He should have told people not to be cowards and die for their own sins. Forgiveness, a mulligan.
you see. I have no problem with the bible. The problem I see is that people who base them self with the bible do not know its origen and how it came to be what it is, the cultural context, and t he history behind etc. When you do not know these things people start assuming many wrong things.
In the big picture, does the bible teach love or separatism? Believers refuse to answer.
Those are my exact sentiments toward science. So, to each their own.
If god created all, why did god create satan? Could a god that created all not destroy satan if he created satan or would this intervene satan's free will?
Is there any logic in your government god?No one knows why GOD did what he did, but GOD. Maybe there are different rules when you leave this earth. GOD had more than one angel. Satan wasn't the only one. Satan was one of GOD's angels, and cast from heaven. Maybe you get a mulligan when your an angel and try to defy GOD?
- I almost fell out of my chair when I read "mulligan". Is this the PGA? I will not knock you for believing in a creator, the biblical god is simply not it.
There's a passivity amongst the religious that makes my jaw drop.
Such blind acceptance, such willingness to believe. Never thinking, never questioning. Conditoned to the point they have become sheep. It's beyond pity.
It's impossible for the intelligent mind to reason with a sheep.Theres a guy over in hubs called yes 2 truth. Why don`t you look him up. Send him a question.
He tried to hide his faith in Jesus while also believing he is a prophet.
Extreme measures to protect faith.Quit being nice marine,the guys an idiot. I just thought maximus wanted a knock down drag out. That`s sure the place to have one. Good old fashioned cuss out.
- Can't argue that. He was pretty pissed when I proved him a false prophet. Though, he still has faith.
Thats the only so called"CHRISTIAN" that pretty much cussed me and everyone else off his hub.Talk about a crispy critter.I`m scared to even go back over there.I might get consumed from the fire out of his mouth.hehe
You stated that you affirm evolution. Do you have any proof of evolution, or furthermore; do you have any background in any field of science whatsoever? Lastly, please start on page 32 http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/23725?page=32, because your comments directed toward me have already been discussed ad nauseum.
Oh yeah, sheep go to Heaven, goats go to hell. Maaaah. Good Luck.
Thank you for good points. My God created everything. Amen to it. All what you say I have to agree with.
USA is founder of modern science. Look to original universities and founders were believers. They observed the creation and studied it.
To dentist: There is nothing wrong with reasoning. But there is better than that. Wisdom is better. After the man sin in the garden he went from revelation down to reasoning. What I want to say is he went from spirit (real man) to be controlled and dominated by mind (soul). Opinions, reasoning is not best since we see we are not going best direction. There are problems everywhere, hate, division, but not unity.
What is remedy for hate?
I must go.It's not your favored 1 system belief, thats for sure. How many have died from your ignorant 1 system belief? Favoritism = separation. Did you not learn this in college? You only know as much as your grouped belief allows you to know.
True!
David Rabbitburrow has recently describes clear foot prints of a family that are 3.5 Million years old. Religionists. read something puleeze!
Oh yeah, I almost forgot. Here are some interesting points on evolution summarized by our Muslim friends (Grade 10 wow).
http://www.albalagh.net/kids/science/evolution.shtmlWoW indeed! Hard to imagine people can be that stupid really.
Education prolly th ansur.What was so stupid about it?
http://www.albalagh.net/kids/science/evolution.shtmlLOL
The complete lack of facts?
This is child abuse - but you are OK with that? You must be very scared. I pity your children.I`d like to hear a little more about the interconnectedness if you don`t mind sharing.I`d like to hear of your experience.
Yes, do tell Evolution Guy. It's for the sake of the children. You stated that evolution is proven, yet it is still a theory.
http://www.albalagh.net/kids/science/evolution.shtml"Evolutionists have failed in every endeavor to prove that evolution or evolutionary processes could have taken place."
Child abuse. You should be ashamed. Jeebus would b ashamed.I didn't write it, I merely linked the points offered by a 10th grader. I thought you might have some actual evidence as to why his summary of the evolution THEORY was incorrect. Obviously you don't like the 10th grader's points, and it is child abuse, so it has to be incorrect. Very scientific conclusion.
LOLOLO
Of course you didn't write it. No - nor endorse it. Not in the slightest.
Obviously I should be providing proof for evolution here instead of making you do the work to disprove a proven fact.
Jeebus b proud a u.It isn't a fact, that is why it is the THEORY of evolution, and not the Scientific Law of Evolution. Sorry, but your fact does not exist, and there is no need for me to try and look up something that doesn't exist. I'm not endorsing anything. I believe in the BIBLE, so evolution is actually of no concern to me. I just thought since it was your belief you could provide contradictory evidence to what the 10th grader summarized. I was obviously wrong.
LOL
Yes - The FACT that evolution happens is indeed a FACT. Proven. With evidence.
Jebus b proud a u 4 askin. Any time u want to provide sum proof a jebus - I b waitin......Jesus doen't require proof. Jesus requires faith. Science requires proof, and Laws in science require explanations which are universally accepted. The THEORY of Evolution is disputed through out science, is not universally accepted, and therefore cannot be a fact or law. Sorry, according to science your belief fails.
Nothing is universally accepted my friend even Christianity is torn into hundreds of interpretations and denominations.
You are trying to argue scientific terms with religion. It doesn't matter that religion is not "universally accepted." That term is irrelevant when compared to religion. That is a term used to prove something scientifically. It's called a scientific law.
I think you're the one arguing, I just made a statement you said evolution isn't a fact or proven, by science definition it is, if you want to use religions definition of proof in that millions of people attest to its existence then once a gain evolution is fact. there a hundred ways around this and they all lead back to one thing, it all depends on the position of the debater. Why do you care what these people believe if your faith is so strong them walk away content in the knowledge that you are right, why all the back and forth trying to prove something you can't and no one has in 4,000 years.
You're missing the point. Religion requires faith, something that science does not require. Additionally, by scientific definitions evolution is a theory, and not universally accepted. It is not a fact, it is a theory. In scientific terms it is a hypothesis which is widely accepted. Nothing more, and nothing less. Lastly, according to science, there are not "a hundred ways around this"
Oh yeah, argue was probably the wrong word choice. I should have said compare.No you are not getting it, crack a science book my friend or even dare I say it go to Wikipedia, Evolution is accepted as fact by the majority of scientist worldwide. I don't care how much you don't like it that's just how it is.Point being no one cares get a life....you're belittling science on the same grounds that they use against you and think its okay.
Seriously, I hope, for the sake of science, you are joking. You my friend are "belittling" science, and everything the scientific method stands for. Obviously, you care, or you would not have responded. Do yourself a favor, "crack open" some physics books, and then re-read your post.
Brilliant one, since you are a genius, maybe you could apply your brilliant genius taught mind to psychology to understand how the bible works to your belief dependent mind.
Genius has nothing to do with what I have explained. Any one can learn it for themselves in a book. There is no hidden agenda in my belief. You either have faith in the lord Jesus Christ, or you don't. There is no psychology behind it. If you don't want to believe that is fine, if you do great.
- No hidden agenda? Does your god teach you to follow or to individualize?
Was you born an individual or a follower? Do you understand that your 1 system belief contradicts having a mind?
Your government god was a seperatist that preached to his followers they were favored for a 1 system belief. Did he teach them to follow or lead themselves? What does favored beliefs create? I'll answer that one for you, it creates seperatism and wars.
How do you have faith and science when faith contradicts science?My GOD teaches me to have faith.
I guess that depends on what you refer to as "science" There are many theories, hypothesis etc. in science. Even the non religious will acknowledge contradiction in them. It has nothing to do with faith.Science says we evolved. Faith says we came from adam and eve. Need I say more?
That is one part of science, and is widely contradicted. That is why I stated "many" You need not say more, because it still boils down to faith.
It always boils down to faith. Faith in a government god to limit your mind to a book. Do you think an unlimited mind is supposed to be limited to a book? Are you an individual when you don't have an individual belief? Are you favored for your belief? Is the mind supposed to control belief or is belief supposed to control the mind?
I don't limit my mind to "a" book. I study many books, but the BIBLE is the only one that matters. Who cares about being an individual. If people want to believe in science, evolution, the devil etc. That is their choice. GOD gave them that choice. I didn't always believe in GOD. You've obviously got a lot of questions that you are searching for answers to. I don't have to concern myself with any of them, because I have faith. Just remember, only sinners go to church.
God (If you believe in him - I don't) gave you a mind.
I suggest you use what 'God' gave you. Well, it's technically what evolution gave you, but I think that will be a hard sell with you.
Your failure to use your mind will ultimately be your own undoing. But are you smart enough to use your mind to understand this?Do me a favor. I'm being serious. If you already haven't please read like four pages back, and you will know my take on evolution. I use my mind my friend.
Why do you make your first two injections of the thread today ,berating these 2 people? We`ve all 3 been in and out of here all day. Use a little restraint and get your feet wet first. Tact!
- Keep studying. The answers aren't in your books. If you don't limit your mind, how is your belief defined within 1 book?
