What are your religious beliefs?

[Parhe]

Either way, I'm not much into god, I'd probably go to hell if he existed.
Truthfully, I despise God more than anyone else, and i disagree with a lot of things he do, if he exists anyway.

to the other guy, I'm not entirely sure what your reply meant, so I guess you got me.

That reminds me, a few months after I'd become an atheist in 6th grade, I remembered one of my friends saying that "From all of us, *my name is censored* would probably be the most likely to go to Heaven."

It was an awkward moment.

Your friends seem to discuss some awkward stuff. We usually stay away from religion, we're more on politics and the demographic problem facing Korea(strangely, we discuss it nearly every other day).

[Norstal]

It's possible: everything makes more sense when you take god out of the picture. Occam's Razor, I loooove you.

Also, please explain this.

Another example is trying to explain how god created the universe. It's hard if you add god in your hypothesis. How would god mold the universe? Is he in or out of reality? How does he create the many elements that exists in our universe? Why did he made light to have a speed limit? Why is there a speed limit in this reality? etc.

[Zebbstar]

That reminds me, a few months after I'd become an atheist in 6th grade, I remembered one of my friends saying that "From all of us, *my name is censored* would probably be the most likely to go to Heaven."

It was an awkward moment.

Your friends seem to discuss some awkward stuff. We usually stay away from religion, we're more on politics and the demographic problem facing Korea(strangely, we discuss it nearly every other day).

My little group of friends tend to talk about religion on a regular basis, We are all atheists anyways.

Generally, The more high we get, The more deep and meaningful the things we talk about

[Parhe]

to the other guy, I'm not entirely sure what your reply meant, so I guess you got me.

Posit that god is everywhere. God affects everything, directly or indirectly. Now how do we explain a moving car colliding with another car? Does the collision affect god or does god affect the drivers? What happens to the 'strings' in our fabric when god intervenes to save the drive of the car? Does lightwave function cease to exist?

See, it just gets incredibly silly (and funny) with that. If you remove god, you can explain the vectors and magnitude of both moving cars without a care in the world. But if you add god, you'd have to account for all the thing he/she/they did.

Physics and philosophy ruins religion. >:)

that exact point was to Mike, but seeing as I did ask you later on, thanks for the reply.
When i come to being Christian, I am a big supporter of pre-destination, that God purposely meant for the cars to collide, and for one of the drivers are meant to nearly die. I also support everything that happens is because God directly cause it to happen, small things like randomly shaking your leg, or a person dropping a pen.

But, I may have not correctly confronted your post, because I was partly confused by it.

[Arumdaum]

That reminds me, a few months after I'd become an atheist in 6th grade, I remembered one of my friends saying that "From all of us, *my name is censored* would probably be the most likely to go to Heaven."

It was an awkward moment.

Your friends seem to discuss some awkward stuff. We usually stay away from religion, we're more on politics and the demographic problem facing Korea(strangely, we discuss it nearly every other day).

Yeah, the guy who said that had a tendency to be awkward in 6th grade.

Me and two of my best friends occasionally talked about politics, about the war on drugs, immigration, gay marriage, the mosque in Manhattan, that kind of stuff. One of them was really right-wing interestingly, so I had my left-wingness refute all his arguments. My other friend was mostly leaning on the left, if not on the left.

But we stayed away from politics most of the time, since hanging out with girls and screwing around getting drunk and TP'ing people's houses was way more fun.

Me and my left-leaning/left friend occasionally talked about how much of a lie religion was though as well.

[Parhe]

Your friends seem to discuss some awkward stuff. We usually stay away from religion, we're more on politics and the demographic problem facing Korea(strangely, we discuss it nearly every other day).

Yeah, the guy who said that had a tendency to be awkward in 6th grade.

Me and two of my best friends occasionally talked about politics, about the war on drugs, immigration, gay marriage, the mosque in Manhattan, that kind of stuff. One of them was really right-wing interestingly, so I had my left-wingness refute all his arguments. My other friend was mostly leaning on the left, if not on the left.

Most of my friends are against labels(weirdly), but they identify themselves as "neutral."
About the Mosque, people are just overeacting.

[Mike the Progressive]

Also, please explain this.

Another example is trying to explain how god created the universe. It's hard if you add god in your hypothesis. How would god mold the universe? Is he in or out of reality? How does he create the many elements that exists in our universe? Why did he made light to have a speed limit? Why is there a speed limit in this reality? etc.

The assumption is that God did it all, however and whatever way he did it. If you give a supreme being infinite and unlimited powers, explanations and details of the nitty gritty are unnecessary. Which is where the whole flying spaghetti monster came from. That said and while I dislike going into the details of my beliefs once I thought, when I was an agnostic, that religion and science could go hand in hand, argued with a professor who thought they were two extremely different paradigms. And I now agree, you can't merge the two, so while I'm a Catholic, my views on everything from the origin to evolution to present day events are secular.

[Arumdaum]

Yeah, the guy who said that had a tendency to be awkward in 6th grade.

Me and two of my best friends occasionally talked about politics, about the war on drugs, immigration, gay marriage, the mosque in Manhattan, that kind of stuff. One of them was really right-wing interestingly, so I had my left-wingness refute all his arguments. My other friend was mostly leaning on the left, if not on the left.

Most of my friends are against labels(weirdly), but they identify themselves as "neutral."
About the Mosque, people are just overeacting.

I know, it's just that I had wanted to give you at least like some kind of picture of how they thought politically and that kind of stuff.

And yeah, people really were overreacting.

[Parhe]

Also, please explain this.

Another example is trying to explain how god created the universe. It's hard if you add god in your hypothesis. How would god mold the universe? Is he in or out of reality? How does he create the many elements that exists in our universe? Why did he made light to have a speed limit? Why is there a speed limit in this reality? etc.

The sad part is that Christians built up God to the point of God does not exist as part of the universe, but is outside of reality, and has the power to create nothing out of something. Also, they say he has this ultimate plan that people can not know or understand.

My one question to them is how God existed in the beginning when nothing else did, but I also don't know much about the big bang theory(which many Christians support also).

[Norstal]

Posit that god is everywhere. God affects everything, directly or indirectly. Now how do we explain a moving car colliding with another car? Does the collision affect god or does god affect the drivers? What happens to the 'strings' in our fabric when god intervenes to save the drive of the car? Does lightwave function cease to exist?

See, it just gets incredibly silly (and funny) with that. If you remove god, you can explain the vectors and magnitude of both moving cars without a care in the world. But if you add god, you'd have to account for all the thing he/she/they did.

Physics and philosophy ruins religion. >:)

that exact point was to Mike, but seeing as I did ask you later on, thanks for the reply.
When i come to being Christian, I am a big supporter of pre-destination, that God purposely meant for the cars to collide, and for one of the drivers are meant to nearly die. I also support everything that happens is because God directly cause it to happen, small things like randomly shaking your leg, or a person dropping a pen.

But, I may have not correctly confronted your post, because I was partly confused by it.

My point is that our reality is best explained when there is no god, which means the chances that god existing is so close to 0% that it's nonexistent. Which is why I invoked Occam's Razor.

Even if we were to assume predestination, then that would be so deterministic that worshiping or recognizing god's existence would be futile. It would also spawn an array of questions like, how did god think of that? How did god created the universe? It would make a cascade of never-ending and unanswerable questions.

If you stop believing in god, poof, those questions are gone. There would be new questions about the natural workings of the world, but they would be, at least, answerable.

[Parhe]

Me and my left-leaning/left friend occasionally talked about how much of a lie religion was though as well.

I actually don't know any atheist around me, though half the people I know are on the left side.

[Parhe]

that exact point was to Mike, but seeing as I did ask you later on, thanks for the reply.
When i come to being Christian, I am a big supporter of pre-destination, that God purposely meant for the cars to collide, and for one of the drivers are meant to nearly die. I also support everything that happens is because God directly cause it to happen, small things like randomly shaking your leg, or a person dropping a pen.

But, I may have not correctly confronted your post, because I was partly confused by it.

My point is that our reality is best explained when there is no god, which means the chances that god existing is so close to 0% that it's nonexistent. Which is why I invoked Occam's Razor.

Even if we were to assume predestination, then that would be so deterministic that worshiping or recognizing god's existence would be futile. It would also spawn an array of questions like, how did god think of that? How did god created the universe? It would make a cascade of never-ending and unanswerable questions.

If you stop believing in god, poof, those questions are gone. There would be new questions about the natural workings of the world, but they would be, at least, answerable.

but the reason people do is because they were made to, while others are made to hate god. The first question, again it has to do with a being with unbelievable power, intelligence and wisdom. Last, couldn't god use any way of creating the universe, such as the big bang or such. How does this question change when god is taken out.

[Norstal]

Another example is trying to explain how god created the universe. It's hard if you add god in your hypothesis. How would god mold the universe? Is he in or out of reality? How does he create the many elements that exists in our universe? Why did he made light to have a speed limit? Why is there a speed limit in this reality? etc.

The assumption is that God did it all, however and whatever way he did it. If you give a supreme being infinite and unlimited powers, explanations and details of the nitty gritty are unnecessary. Which is where the whole flying spaghetti monster came from. That said and while I dislike going into the details of my beliefs once I thought, when I was an agnostic, that religion and science could go hand in hand, argued with a professor who thought they were two extremely different paradigms. And I now agree, you can't merge the two, so while I'm a Catholic, my views on everything from the origin to evolution to present day events are secular.

Exactly why I turned away from theistic religion after I pursued science. To be fair, there are Christian scientists, but deep inside, scientists know that one cannot make conclusions without evidence. What's more, they already doubted god by questioning the very workings of the universe.

It's easy to combine both religion and science together, but it would be fallacious. I sometime question their motivations for being part of both science and religion (these people do get paid to speak), but nevertheless, they exist and they have made incredible contributions to science, which is why I respect them.

[Arumdaum]

Me and my left-leaning/left friend occasionally talked about how much of a lie religion was though as well.

I actually don't know any atheist around me, though half the people I know are on the left side.

The first atheist I knew was my dad, who I used to always try to drag along into Church and convert.

I never had non-Christian friends (that I knew were non-Christian) until I was in middle school.

Every Korean-American other than myself that I know is Christian, interestingly, and are usually really religious.

[Mexico and its People]

Roman Catholic.

Always have, and always will be.

And damn proud of it too.

[Mike the Progressive]

The assumption is that God did it all, however and whatever way he did it. If you give a supreme being infinite and unlimited powers, explanations and details of the nitty gritty are unnecessary. Which is where the whole flying spaghetti monster came from. That said and while I dislike going into the details of my beliefs once I thought, when I was an agnostic, that religion and science could go hand in hand, argued with a professor who thought they were two extremely different paradigms. And I now agree, you can't merge the two, so while I'm a Catholic, my views on everything from the origin to evolution to present day events are secular.

Exactly why I turned away from theistic religion after I pursued science. To be fair, there are Christian scientists, but deep inside, scientists know that one cannot make conclusions without evidence. What's more, they already doubted god by questioning the very workings of the universe.

It's easy to combine both religion and science together, but it would be fallacious. I sometime question their motivations for being part of both science and religion (these people do get paid to speak), but nevertheless, they exist and they have made incredible contributions to science, which is why I respect them.

I'm not saying priests who have been scientists or done scientific work or are doing it are wrong. But I cannot see the two ideas being shared, I don't buy into theistic evolution, not because I don't believe in a deity, nor because I do not believe in evolution; but because one is based off faith and the other reason, and they are two conflicting ideas.

But I think the two can be separated. It's the one 'golden exception,' if you will. And it's mine and many others.

[Parhe]

The assumption is that God did it all, however and whatever way he did it. If you give a supreme being infinite and unlimited powers, explanations and details of the nitty gritty are unnecessary. Which is where the whole flying spaghetti monster came from. That said and while I dislike going into the details of my beliefs once I thought, when I was an agnostic, that religion and science could go hand in hand, argued with a professor who thought they were two extremely different paradigms. And I now agree, you can't merge the two, so while I'm a Catholic, my views on everything from the origin to evolution to present day events are secular.

Exactly why I turned away from theistic religion after I pursued science. To be fair, there are Christian scientists, but deep inside, scientists know that one cannot make conclusions without evidence. What's more, they already doubted god by questioning the very workings of the universe.

It's easy to combine both religion and science together, but it would be fallacious. I sometime question their motivations for being part of both science and religion (these people do get paid to speak), but nevertheless, they exist and they have made incredible contributions to science, which is why I respect them.

I do not see how that could be doubting. I don't believe Christians are not suppose to attempt to learn what makes them curious, or wanting to become closer to god by understanding more what he has created. I do not recall God being against science, people can argue that God made things as they are so that people can discover them, in a twisted version of a easter egg hunt.

[Norstal]

My point is that our reality is best explained when there is no god, which means the chances that god existing is so close to 0% that it's nonexistent. Which is why I invoked Occam's Razor.

Even if we were to assume predestination, then that would be so deterministic that worshiping or recognizing god's existence would be futile. It would also spawn an array of questions like, how did god think of that? How did god created the universe? It would make a cascade of never-ending and unanswerable questions.

If you stop believing in god, poof, those questions are gone. There would be new questions about the natural workings of the world, but they would be, at least, answerable.

but the reason people do is because they were made to, while others are made to hate god. The first question, again it has to do with a being with unbelievable power, intelligence and wisdom. Last, couldn't god use any way of creating the universe, such as the big bang or such. How does this question change when god is taken out.

How does god create the Big Bang?

See, this is what even Theologians can't answer. We can answer how the Big Bang itself happen, but how would a supreme being create it? It's impossible. It would be lack of evidence. If you remove god from science, things makes more sense. With god in it, it's too convoluted to even try to answer it.

[Parhe]

I actually don't know any atheist around me, though half the people I know are on the left side.

The first atheist I knew was my dad, who I used to always try to drag along into Church and convert.

I never had non-Christian friends (that I knew were non-Christian) until I was in middle school.

Every Korean-American other than myself that I know is Christian, interestingly, and are usually really religious.

Funny thing is that I remember reading that most Korean-Americans tend to be on the right side of the political spectrum. Maybe a connection or something.

Also, why would you question an atheist how you know if god exists.

[Parhe]

but the reason people do is because they were made to, while others are made to hate god. The first question, again it has to do with a being with unbelievable power, intelligence and wisdom. Last, couldn't god use any way of creating the universe, such as the big bang or such. How does this question change when god is taken out.

How does god create the Big Bang?

See, this is what even Theologians can't answer. We can answer how the Big Bang itself happen, but how would a supreme being create it? It's impossible. It would be lack of evidence. If you remove god from science, things makes more sense. With god in it, it's too convoluted to even try to answer it.

Please explain the big bang to me with out god.

[Mexico and its People]

Ok. So it all starts with the big bang. The ball of enery that then exploded yada yada yada. It had to be triggered by something. My explanation: God. God exists in a realm outside of our own, he isn't bound to our concepts of time and physics. The Book of Genesis describes that God created the universe in 7 days (6 with a day of rest). My question to you: What is a day to God? This question can not be awnsered. God is not bound by our perception of time. A day for him could be a week for us, a month, a year, or, 10 Millenia. Genesis seems to describe things in the order that the theory of evoulution describes them to be. First, the stars, then day and night, then the earth, then vegetation, then creatures in the sea and land, then finally, humans. According to Genesis, in 7 days. But once again, what's a day to God? It could be entirely that 7 "God days" are in our preception, a couple billion years. However, since god is Omnipotent and Omnipresent (in our universe), he can do all his godly things to us. Science was originally meant to compliment religion, not contrast it. Sir Issac Newton was a devout christian. Modern science in my opinion has been distorted by secularism, everytime a scientist makes a discovery, he almost goes "take that religion! Your myths are crazy", when really, he never trully finished his discovery. He never connected the dots. He never sought out any similarities in "contrasting" beliefs. I say evolution is a our preception of creation. Does this all make sense?

[Norstal]

Exactly why I turned away from theistic religion after I pursued science. To be fair, there are Christian scientists, but deep inside, scientists know that one cannot make conclusions without evidence. What's more, they already doubted god by questioning the very workings of the universe.

It's easy to combine both religion and science together, but it would be fallacious. I sometime question their motivations for being part of both science and religion (these people do get paid to speak), but nevertheless, they exist and they have made incredible contributions to science, which is why I respect them.

I do not see how that could be doubting. I don't believe Christians are not suppose to attempt to learn what makes them curious, or wanting to become closer to god by understanding more what he has created. I do not recall God being against science, people can argue that God made things as they are so that people can discover them, in a twisted version of a easter egg hunt.

I never said they can't, they'd just be hypocritical because we have to answer how god did it first. We can't conclude god did it; we have to prove god did it. That would be impossible and forbidden, would it not? That, in other words, is an attempt on trying to be god.

[Parhe]

Exactly why I turned away from theistic religion after I pursued science. To be fair, there are Christian scientists, but deep inside, scientists know that one cannot make conclusions without evidence. What's more, they already doubted god by questioning the very workings of the universe.

It's easy to combine both religion and science together, but it would be fallacious. I sometime question their motivations for being part of both science and religion (these people do get paid to speak), but nevertheless, they exist and they have made incredible contributions to science, which is why I respect them.

I'm not saying priests who have been scientists or done scientific work or are doing it are wrong. But I cannot see the two ideas being shared, I don't buy into theistic evolution, not because I don't believe in a deity, nor because I do not believe in evolution; but because one is based off faith and the other reason, and they are two conflicting ideas.
Funny, I actually have the different view, that they are not hand in hand exactly but not conflicting. As in able to be combined to some level.
But I think the two can be separated. It's the one 'golden exception,' if you will. And it's mine and many others.

[Mexico and its People]

but the reason people do is because they were made to, while others are made to hate god. The first question, again it has to do with a being with unbelievable power, intelligence and wisdom. Last, couldn't god use any way of creating the universe, such as the big bang or such. How does this question change when god is taken out.

How does god create the Big Bang?

See, this is what even Theologians can't answer. We can answer how the Big Bang itself happen, but how would a supreme being create it? It's impossible. It would be lack of evidence. If you remove god from science, things makes more sense. With god in it, it's too convoluted to even try to answer it.

Because the big bang started itslef..../sarcasm

[Agritum]

I prefer to be agnostic and enjoy my stay on the forums instead of bitching with random people on religion.