Do you question your religious beliefs? Would you like to?

[knapplc]

I don't agree with robsker's assessment either, although I appreciate the point he's trying to get at. Essentially, for the Christian, Scripture needs to have a higher authority than our whims, feelings and emotions, because those are fickle and can't be trusted. However, God has revealed Himself "inside" each of us as well. Our moral code and conscience being the most easily identifiable way. There's a whole bunch of theologically sticky points involved in this discussion that I don't care to break down, but simply put, I just think we need to be very careful.

That's the problem - higher authority than whom? Because man wrote those scriptures, not any higher authority. Paul wrote the epistles and unknown authors wrote the Gospels. The authorship of the whole Bible is man.

The explanation, that they were "divinely inspired," is no different than the explanation for The Book of Mormon, which I'm certain you believe is heresy (as would most Christians). But they have equal authenticity, and in fact The Book of Mormon has a more identifiable authorship than the New Testament.

Every religion is based on that "higher authority," yet no Muslim is going to honor the Bible as his holy text, no Buddhist will do that for the Koran, no Christian for the Talmud.

The inescapable fact of religion by birth location dispels most God myths.

The book of Mormon might have more identifiable authoring, but it has other areas where it falls short. And I mean way short.

A Muslim, a Buddhist, a Jew and a Zoroastrian would say the same about the Bible.

That's the dilemma about religion - there's always another equally valid one around the corner, disputing this one.

 

[HuskerShark]

Like all things, an inquisitive nature is healthy in moderation. We all see what it looks like when it goes WAY too far in the extreme - conspiracy theorist sort of behavior.

A lot of people seem to ask questions that they believe they already know the answer to, then try to shape what the evidence shows them rather than considering that the evidence might suggest that the answer they want to find isn't the correct one. I'm not saying that religious people do that across the board, but I know some do.

It wasn't long ago that I did everything I could to convince myself that God was real, but nothing I came up with ever really satisfied me.

You can take this suggestion or leave it, your choice:

Chances are, when you were searching for answers about your faith, you were looking for evidence in the world around you. The place that you have to look to find God is within yourself.

To most people who are not Christian, and even many who are, that statement might not make a lot of sense. So like I said, take it or leave it.

Jeremiah 17:9 makes clear that searching for God in yourself is dangerous and is not the place to look. The place to look for insight about God is not your heart (which is deceitful) or in the world... but the rather is the inerrant Word of God... God's revelation of Himself --- that is, the Bible. There and there alone you learn of God.

That's also an old testament Bible verse. I could explain more what I mean by that, but I don't have the time at the moment.

 

[husker_99]

The Bible isn't written by God thus it can be wrong. There are plenty of books that didn't make the old and new testament but that doesn't mean they are wrong. Take Ruth, God is not mentioned once in Ruth but yet they include it because it was inspired by God. Humans are judging on what books to include and not God. Just because you think they are written by God doesn't mean it's true. There is a reason why religion is hard to understand because it's never written clearly and if you knew how it really came together you probably wouldn't believe it.

 

[Undone]

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Abiogenesis

Evolution

...to start.

There is actually a lot of the scientific community working on natural explanations to these things. And what is not known right now, doesn't mean it's not unknowable. Sometimes it's okay to say "I don't know" in science.

But just because there is an 'I don't know', doesn't mean you can invoke the supernatural or "magic" as an answer. You can't answer a mystery with an even bigger mystery. You'd have to show evidence for the supernatural first.

Abiogenesis obviously only attempts to explain the third item in the list he posted. It only deals with one of the five things he gave on the list, it doesn't have anything to do with the other four. Life from non-life and complex life from simple life, that's small potatoes compared to the other three.

But really, abiogenesis doesn't actually have much to do with the question of whether or not god, gods, or God exists.

 

[CornHOLIO]

I'm really glad God has a sense of humor.

He usually just laughs at Bibles and Religions.

 

[Conga3]

Atheism is boring and lacks imagination.

How so?

When someone says they are an atheist, they are rejecting an infinite number of possibilities for [existence/origin/genesis/t0/etc]

When someone says they believe in [God/Creator/Something], they are only rejecting one possibility.

So yeah, I find atheism boring and unimaginative.

 

[sd'sker]

Atheism is boring and lacks imagination.

How so?

When someone says they are an atheist, they are rejecting an infinite number of possibilities for [existence/origin/genesis/t0/etc]

When someone says they believe in [God/Creator/Something], they are only rejecting one other possibility.

So yeah, I find atheism boring and unimaginative.

when you choose to believe in the judeo-christian god, you are rejecting a lot more possibilities than you admit:

List of deities

 

[Conga3]

Atheism is boring and lacks imagination.

How so?

When someone says they are an atheist, they are rejecting an infinite number of possibilities for [existence/origin/genesis/t0/etc]

When someone says they believe in [God/Creator/Something], they are only rejecting one other possibility.

So yeah, I find atheism boring and unimaginative.

when you choose to believe in the judeo-christian god, you are rejecting a lot more possibilities than you admit:

List of deities

You are correct. I should have lumped the religious specific believers in with atheists.

Regardless, I'm responding to why I find atheists boring and unimaginative - so just strike that line...

 

[bennychico11]

Atheism is boring and lacks imagination.

How so?

When someone says they are an atheist, they are rejecting an infinite number of possibilities for [existence/origin/genesis/t0/etc]

When someone says they believe in [God/Creator/Something], they are only rejecting one possibility.

So yeah, I find atheism boring and unimaginative.

atheism is only the rejection of a god claim. Someone asks me "do you believe in the god X"...and I say no.

My atheism is not dependent on my beliefs on existence, origins of life, the universe, political views, moral values, etc (although, I don't know what t0 is).

Even if it was. Purely because something is "possible" or can be imagined, does NOT make it true. Just because I can imagine the most amazingly, magical dragon that can teleport through time....does NOT make you un-imaginative for saying I'm delusional.

There is this thing called reality. And I'm content with living in it.

 

[zoogs]

Atheism is boring and lacks imagination.

How so?

When someone says they are an atheist, they are rejecting an infinite number of possibilities for [existence/origin/genesis/t0/etc]

When someone says they believe in [God/Creator/Something], they are only rejecting one possibility.

So yeah, I find atheism boring and unimaginative.

By one, you mean infinite minus one, which is equivalently infinite. But I'm sure most atheists wouldn't worry too much about losing the imagination awards. Atheism, after all, isn't a 'thing'; it's merely the lack of theism, and lack of things can't usually compete with things, as far as things go. It isn't even necessarily an active rejection of anything...merely the lack of active theism.

 

[bennychico11]

Abiogenesis obviously only attempts to explain the third item in the list he posted. It only deals with one of the five things he gave on the list, it doesn't have anything to do with the other four. Life from non-life and complex life from simple life, that's small potatoes compared to the other three.

But really, abiogenesis doesn't actually have much to do with the question of whether or not god, gods, or God exists.

That's why I said "to start"

The rest is way out of my field. I suggest talking to a particle physicist or molecular biologist for more information

And I know abiogenesis doesn't have anything to do with the existence of a god. I wasn't asserting that. I was only responding to his assertion that there are no natural explanations for the world around us and that we must then conclude that the default position is then based in the supernatural. Which is absurd.

 

[zoogs]

However, there needs to be balance. It can get to the point where you sin in your questioning - if you are never satisfied, always raising dissension and irreconcilably cynical. Like all things, an inquisitive nature is healthy in moderation. We all see what it looks like when it goes WAY too far in the extreme - conspiracy theorist sort of behavior.

I don't know if I could possibly disagree more.

This statement, to me, is one that fears the possibility of too much curiosity and seeks to discourage those of faith from the potential consequences of it. But there is nothing more pure than open-minded curiosity, discussion, laying everything bare and all out on the table for critical examination. If you're wrong, you can find out...as long as you're still willing to look.

The equation of insatiable curiosity and conspiracy theorist sort of behavior is one I find most troubling, because conspiracy theorists are ones who do not have an open mind or curiosity. They have already made up their minds and had very, very low standards of justification for it. That is as far gone from curious as you get -- not to mention, they'll let no amount of contrary examination get in their way.

The inquisitive human spirit transcends cultural and religious boundaries and should be welcomed by everyone, without fear and without the kind of worry that calls for limits and 'moderation'. Dare I say, the truth shall set you free.

 

[sd'sker]

'atheism' as a descriptor is a little unfair. it sets out that 'theism' is the standard and 'atheism' and the anomaly or antithesis. therefore, 'atheists' are still being defined by 'theism' as the rejection of that. i would assume most 'atheist' would rather be described by what they believe rather than what the do not. i think most would prefer terms like 'rationalist' (not saying faith is irrational, but faith, by definition, asks you to believe in that which can not be proven. and the stronger the faith in the more irrational, the better), or 'naturalist'.

 

[Conga3]

atheism is only the rejection of a god claim. Someone asks me "do you believe in the god X"...and I say no.

My atheism is not dependent on my beliefs on existence, origins of life, the universe, political views, moral values, etc (although, I don't know what t0 is).

Even if it was. Purely because something is "possible" or can be imagined, does NOT make it true. Just because I can imagine the most amazingly, magical dragon that can teleport through time....does NOT make you un-imaginative for saying I'm delusional.

There is this thing called reality. And I'm content with living in it.

T0 or T=0 is how a theoretical physicist would describe the event prior to the big bang - when time was zero.

-------------

The more I read my post the more I'm disappointed in it. I wrote something else that possibly explained my point better but I lost it in the circus that is my browser when I'm working...

If we ask 10 atheists to describe what it means to be atheist... might we get 10 different versions? But the bottom line is you do not believe a 'god' created our universe with design or purpose in mind....correct?

To an atheist the BIG ANSWER is .... 'because...no big deal'.

Well, I find that a bit limiting when considering THE BIG QUESTIONS...

I'm sure I could have an enjoyable conversation with someone about science and the origin debate who happens to be an atheist... I just find the fervent "belief" in the non-belief to be....well, boring and lacking imagination.

...but I'l be honest, I haven't had big time discussions with practiced atheists before.

 

[sd'sker]

To an atheist the BIG ANSWER is .... 'because...no big deal'.

this could not be further from the truth. and there are a lot of scientists (or philosopher), whether religious or not, who are searching for that answer and motivated passionately and solely by science (or truth).

...but I'l be honest, I haven't had big time discussions with practiced atheists before.

what is a 'practiced atheist'?