What are your religious beliefs?

[Arumdaum]

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.

Yeah, I read up that Korean-Americans hate same-sex marriage the most with 70% disapproving, 25% approving, way ahead of any other ethnic group, the second being Vietnamese, with 64% disapproval. Not exactly showing the left-right thing, but it's an alright indicator. Korean Americans also mostly vote Republican.

And to the question, huh? I just tried my best to convince him to be Christian, pretty much, not by using arguments (I was like what, eight?), and instead holding onto his leg and being like "DADDY WHY WON'T YOU BE CHRISTIANNNNNNNNN???!?!?!"

[Parhe]

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.

But couldn't they also view themselves as trying to prove how God had made it to work, or if God had made something able to be done. I don't see how it is wrong by Christian standards to prove God did it.
Also, I am again not sure entirely about what you mean on the last part. how would it be trying to be god if we try to prove if God did something or didn't.

[Norstal]

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.

That's not the point mate, the point is that you can't explain how god create the Big Bang, even if the theory itself is able to be explained. Same goes with any other scientific theory.

But ok, there are many theories on this one. I'll go with the Cosmic microwave background radiation. It explains that the universe was a big ball of fire, slowly expanding by creating new protons and other basic atomic structures.It was able to do this through thermodynamic equilibrium, where the energy in every part of the universe was the same. When the universe expanded enough, it began to cool down to the point that it cannot create matter anymore. These atomic structures also form new elements and somehow, a chemical reaction made an explosion big enough that it created the Big Bang.

Now, how would god make thermodynamic equilibrium when the universe is already in it? See, makes no sense.

[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.

[Mike the Progressive]

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.

I guess the question is why do we feel the need to discover how God did anything? If you look at Christianity as a way to explain the origin, how the world works, and so on -you're doing it wrong. It's a book on morality and personal salvation. Even Christians who are scientists shouldn't be looking for that, they shouldn't try the two together, and I know many who don't.

[Norstal]

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.

I agree with him. What about it?

But couldn't they also view themselves as trying to prove how God had made it to work, or if God had made something able to be done. I don't see how it is wrong by Christian standards to prove God did it.
Also, I am again not sure entirely about what you mean on the last part. how would it be trying to be god if we try to prove if God did something or didn't.

But, they have to both prove that:

God exists.
God was the one who did it.
How it happens.

Scientists can only tackle "how it happens". Oh, they can prove god did it, but I've never seen any reasonable papers on this.

And if we discover how god make humans, we could then make humans (I'm not talking about cloning, I'm talking about making humans out of mud, that kind of thing). We could make consciousness (in other animals). If we discovered how god create planets, etc., then we would be able to do it too.

[Norstal]

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.

I guess the question is why do we feel the need to discover how God did anything? If you look at Christianity as a way to explain the origin, how the world works, and so on -you're doing it wrong. It's a book on morality and personal salvation. Even Christians who are scientists shouldn't be looking for that, they shouldn't try the two together, and I know many who don't.

You have to prove that god exists, do you not?

[Parhe]

Please explain the big bang to me with out god.

That's not the point mate, the point is that you can't explain how god create the Big Bang, even if the theory itself is able to be explained. Same goes with any other scientific theory.

But ok, there are many theories on this one. I'll go with the Cosmic microwave background radiation. It explains that the universe was a big ball of fire, slowly expanding by creating new protons and other basic atomic structures.It was able to do this through thermodynamic equilibrium, where the energy in every part of the universe was the same. When the universe expanded enough, it began to cool down to the point that it cannot create matter anymore. These atomic structures also form new elements and somehow, a chemical reaction made an explosion big enough that it created the Big Bang.

Now, how would god make thermodynamic equilibrium when the universe is already in it? See, makes no sense.

Sorry, I should have explained, the reason I asked was because I am not too flimiar with the theory in the first place.
But, like you said yourself, this leads to more questions, but you say these are answerable. So, my question would be, what exactly is the somehow that makes the chemical reaction, or was the universe always a big ball of fire, if not what was it before? Or how were the new protons or other structures, or from what if the universe(everything) was a big ball of fire?
I don't really need answers to these(though i am always interested in learning, so it would be a bonus), but I do not see how this is less confusing than with God.

[Mexico and its People]

I guess the question is why do we feel the need to discover how God did anything? If you look at Christianity as a way to explain the origin, how the world works, and so on -you're doing it wrong. It's a book on morality and personal salvation. Even Christians who are scientists shouldn't be looking for that, they shouldn't try the two together, and I know many who don't.

You have to prove that god exists, do you not?

You can't. That's the whole point of faith. You have to truly believe.

[Parhe]

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.

Definitely what I believed, religion is not always(I say usually) in conflict with science

[Norstal]

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.

Because you just made the explanation.

See, I find that funny. You want us to prove how the Big Bang happened, and then you shove it down our throat that god exists. It's like someone trying to prove the defendant is guilty and then you interject them with nonsense.

"How did that man killed that other man?"

"Well, you see, he brought the knife to his apartment at..."

"NO, YOU'RE WRONG! The law book says so."

"What?"

"The law book says so. See, buying knives is okay."

He never connected the dots. He never sought out any similarities in "contrasting" beliefs. I say evolution is a our preception of creation.

What dots? What similarities? What the hell does the latter mean?

[Natty Narwhal]

I worship Ashenzari. At one point, I worshiped Beogh.

[Parhe]

I agree with him. What about it?

But couldn't they also view themselves as trying to prove how God had made it to work, or if God had made something able to be done. I don't see how it is wrong by Christian standards to prove God did it.
Also, I am again not sure entirely about what you mean on the last part. how would it be trying to be god if we try to prove if God did something or didn't.

But, they have to both prove that:

God exists.
God was the one who did it.
How it happens.

Scientists can only tackle "how it happens". Oh, they can prove god did it, but I've never seen any reasonable papers on this.

And if we discover how god make humans, we could then make humans (I'm not talking about cloning, I'm talking about making humans out of mud, that kind of thing). We could make consciousness (in other animals). If we discovered how god create planets, etc., then we would be able to do it too.

Of course, the first two would go together, and Christians tackle that by saying faith can not be proven. Yes you are right, if humans are to discover those things and have the resources, we could create humans or planets. I believe people discover things because God decides to reveal them to us.

[Parhe]

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.

Because you just made the explanation.

See, I find that funny. You want us to prove how the Big Bang happened, and then you shove it down our throat that god exists. It's like someone trying to prove the defendant is guilty and then you interject them with nonsense.

"How did that man killed that other man?"

"Well, you see, he brought the knife to his apartment at..."

"NO, YOU'RE WRONG! The law book says so."

"What?"

"The law book says so. See, buying knives is okay."

But you are assuming the person believes the bible to be perfect(which he might), but I believe it is too contradictory to be entirely correct. I also don't see the connection that well about the defendant. Does God really conflict with the Big bang that they both can not exist?

[Norstal]

That's not the point mate, the point is that you can't explain how god create the Big Bang, even if the theory itself is able to be explained. Same goes with any other scientific theory.

But ok, there are many theories on this one. I'll go with the Cosmic microwave background radiation. It explains that the universe was a big ball of fire, slowly expanding by creating new protons and other basic atomic structures.It was able to do this through thermodynamic equilibrium, where the energy in every part of the universe was the same. When the universe expanded enough, it began to cool down to the point that it cannot create matter anymore. These atomic structures also form new elements and somehow, a chemical reaction made an explosion big enough that it created the Big Bang.

Now, how would god make thermodynamic equilibrium when the universe is already in it? See, makes no sense.

Sorry, I should have explained, the reason I asked was because I am not too flimiar with the theory in the first place.
But, like you said yourself, this leads to more questions, but you say these are answerable. So, my question would be, what exactly is the somehow that makes the chemical reaction, or was the universe always a big ball of fire, if not what was it before? Or how were the new protons or other structures, or from what if the universe(everything) was a big ball of fire?

We're trying to find that out, but it is answerable and falsifiable. If you want to do more research, you can read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_mic ... _radiation

It's long and it's confusing, but it answers your questions. Also, know that just because you can't answer it, doesn't mean you can stand idle and resort to god. I don't know how paper is made. That doesn't mean it's not manufactured by humans.

I don't really need answers to these(though i am always interested in learning, so it would be a bonus), but I do not see how this is less confusing than with God.

It does not quench my thirst for knowledge. It makes me more thirsty. In fact, I'll get confused if I try to include god into anything.

Perhaps you don't get confused by it, but to me, it does. Occam's Razor, again, shows that taking god out of the picture simplifies things more.

[Mexico and its People]

Because you just made the explanation.

See, I find that funny. You want us to prove how the Big Bang happened, and then you shove it down our throat that god exists. It's like someone trying to prove the defendant is guilty and then you interject them with nonsense.

"How did that man killed that other man?"

"Well, you see, he brought the knife to his apartment at..."

"NO, YOU'RE WRONG! The law book says so."

"What?"

"The law book says so. See, buying knives is okay."

But you are assuming the person believes the bible to be perfect(which he might), but I believe it is too contradictory to be entirely correct. I also don't see the connection that well about the defendant. Does God really conflict with the Big bang that they both can not exist?

No no no, I'm trying to make the point that that science and religion compliment, not contrast. I was just trying to show the evolution is our preception of creation. Creation is God's POV. Evolution is mankinds POV. The not connecting the dots part was describing how science would make a theory, and use it to "disprove" religion, when, in fact, it compliments religion. I follow the Bible as literal truth.

[Norstal]

But you are assuming the person believes the bible to be perfect(which he might), but I believe it is too contradictory to be entirely correct. I also don't see the connection that well about the defendant. Does God really conflict with the Big bang that they both can not exist?

For any scientific theory, really.

[Mike the Progressive]

I guess the question is why do we feel the need to discover how God did anything? If you look at Christianity as a way to explain the origin, how the world works, and so on -you're doing it wrong. It's a book on morality and personal salvation. Even Christians who are scientists shouldn't be looking for that, they shouldn't try the two together, and I know many who don't.

You have to prove that god exists, do you not?

No, you don't. Where's the need? Again science isn't trying to figure out a way of how God made xyz possible. Science simply exists to explain how it happened. To add God as a reason, a cause, etc. is merely adding on to it, creating an excess, making it a stretch to fit your already established conclusions. The goal is to arrive at a conclusion, not justify your own. I've never had the urge to prove that God exists, especially since the entire concept is based on faith.

[Furious Grandmothers]

But you are assuming the person believes the bible to be perfect(which he might), but I believe it is too contradictory to be entirely correct. I also don't see the connection that well about the defendant. Does God really conflict with the Big bang that they both can not exist?

No no no, I'm trying to make the point that that science and religion compliment, not contrast. I was just trying to show the evolution is our preception of creation. Creation is God's POV. Evolution is mankinds POV. The not connecting the dots part was describing how science would make a theory, and use it to "disprove" religion, when, in fact, it compliments religion. I follow the Bible as literal truth.

Oh, dear Lord, another religion debate Yeah, sorry to break the news to you, but science and religion indeed contradict each other. Science has been showing that the probability of God existing is effectively zero.

[Dyakovo]

Interesting, it's mostly the opposite everywhere else.

Kind of makes you wonder if people, by large, become atheists (or Christians) because they are 'enlightened,' or if they become atheists (or Christians) to reject their parent's beliefs imposed upon them. I for one was a fundamentalist and evangelical baptist who became a Catholic and than an agnostic, before I returned back to the Church.

I 'became' an atheist because I was never taught about any god(s) when I was little. My first introduction to the idea of deities (in a context where I had reason to believe people actually believed they existed) was learning about Greek mythology in school. A consequence of this is I find the whole idea of believing in/worshiping a deity or deities to be bizarre.

[Dyakovo]

Roman Catholic.

Always have, and always will be.

And damn proud of it too.

Why would you be proud of it?

[Germanic Templars]

Roman Catholic.

Always have, and always will be.

And damn proud of it too.

Why would you be proud of it?

Why not?
*Rhetorical question*

[Dyakovo]

Why would you be proud of it?

Why not?
*Rhetorical question*

Because being proud of believing in imaginary beings is silly... Hell, being proud of not believing in imaginary beings is silly as well..

[Germanic Templars]

Why not?
*Rhetorical question*

Because being proud of believing in imaginary beings is silly... Hell, being proud of not believing in imaginary beings is silly as well..

And thats the funny thing about life (and many other things about life as well)

[Meryuma]

But I still remained Christian, and in late 5th and early 6th grade I was a Christian fundamentalist, hostile to all other religions, most specifically Islam and Buddhism.

In the end of sixth grade I became an ardent atheist, while in the beginning of 7th grade I started to lean towards Buddhism but became an agnostic-atheist.

I still really like Buddhism though.

Many Buddhists are atheists.