GameBanshee Forums

@Dottie
I haven't seen, smelled or heared anything that proofs divine existence, but there are many other things that make me believe there is 'something more'...

@Rudar Dimble: Well, if you tell me them I might change my mind then . Though I think its very unlikely.

too many things to tell. Many things that are called 'coincidence' (sp??) are too coincidental to me.

Normally...

...I stay clear from religious-based thread that tend to elicit very heated debates especially from us Christians.

I'm Catholic and I honestly say that at times I get upset however knowing prettty well that everybody is entitled to one's opinion.

Because of this I rarely give my side of the story.

However, I would like to say something about why I believe in God...

...there are just certain things that the empirical method, coupled with logic, cannot just be explained and rationalized.

That's why it's called Faith.

I'm not talking about Blind Faith as some cynics would at times view us as such.

I tend to be rational, but there are certain significant experiences in my life that make me believe that there is a God.

Non-believers would not appreciate them nor even bother to notice. Being closed out to His existence makes them unable to see through things.

Anyway, I believe that it's the journey and not the destination.

It's how you get to reach/attain things at the end of your life makes it more meaningful as one awaits his Maker.

If you appreciate what I just said then thanks for even listening.

Originally posted by Tom
I mean why do people believe so many obviously false and strange things. For example some people believe that their lives are determined by stars other that various crystals can cure you of any number of diseases. People pay thousands of pounds to have somebody hold his hands a few centimetres over your skin which shows that people really believe this stuff. People believe in fairies, auras you name it - its so weird.

And one hundred years ago, many doctors (not to mention laymen) were discussing psychoanalysis as either preoposterous magic, or quackery. Sound-on-film had been invented by Dic!son working in Edison's Labs in the early 1890's (they even made a short film to demonstrate it), but major investors refused to take the time to go to New Jersey to hear it. They knew it was a lie and a fraud in advance.

Louis Pasteur was greeted as a liar by nearly all the newspapers and scientific establishments of his day, in France and abroad, when he alleged that diseases were caused by tiny, unseen beasts--hence the word, "microbes." He declared that different microbes caused different diseases, and that a weakened form of a microbe, easily fought off, provided immunity against a disease. This initally made a laughingstock--as did his work on crystallography, which developed into the science of stereochemistry.

Mind, I'm not saying that crystals, faith healing, auras, fairies, astrology or anything else of a similar nature works. I'm only suggesting that it's well to keep an open but not credulous mind, remembering that the main reasons some fully accepted ideas and inventions in modern Western culture were initially rejected were 1) they were thought ridiculous from the first, or 2) a means of scientific verification had yet to be developed. "False and strange" is a label that's too easily accepted. Good science consists in maintaining, not that something is false, but that it is not proven. Credulity is bad, but one has to be careful to avoid falling into the opposite trap.

Aromatherapy is a good example of a "quack science" that has only recently been accepted as a small branch of chemistry. It is still burdened by the bulk of non-scientific and sometimes silly material that has been promulgated in its name over the centuries, but scientists have finally acknowledged that yes, just as topical treatment on or within the body of herbs (or their medically distilled ingredients; the modern science of pharmacology) can produce a wide range of beneficial results, so the vaporization of some herbs, distilled in oils, can have a profound effect on various areas of the body. The scientific community refused to accept aromatherapy for a long time simply because they refused to test the action of vapor molecules on the body, despite overwhelming anecdotal evidence of its success.

*Enter SYM's most devot Atheist*

I believe that "belief" in dieties and religion is merely a securty blanket. It's something thats around for people to hold on to, and have a stable element in there life when times are hard. Proof of this is during every major crisis (whether local of global), people flock to religion, thinking that maybe they were right in the preaching, or that the end is coming. I personally don't do this (being Secular Humanist).Now, Unlike many people, I have no problem with people who wish to find security in religion and beliefs, as I feel it is not only within their rights to pursue happiness, but who am I to say they are wrong. That doesn't mean I'll do it though. I'm fine not believeing that one all powerful (or multiple all powerful beings in the case of Hindu's) dictates my fate, and that I am the master of my own destiny. At the same time, though, I don't suscribe to the sterotype of Atheism, about having no morales or conscious. I, in fact, think that many of the morales and rules passed down through religion are very sound, and should be followed, but like many things, I don't think the way they are implemented is the proper way (much like Communism, and certain assassinations ) Anyway, I would type more, but I have work soon ( ). I'll be back early tomorrow, though (EST of course)

And, again, someone else said what I was going to say. I'm in complete agreement with Aegis. I think I'm a little more anti-religious then him, though...

Although I do in fact believ in God, and yes, my belief are founded in Christianity( although I tend to shun organized religion for the most part) I do have to agree that I am in agreement with some of what Aegis says. I personally do not feel that my belief in God requires me to surrender my fate or my future as being predestinated or unchangable. In fact, I tend to be on the opposite side. I believe in the power of the individual to decide his own fate. I have never seen God as a sentencing being in the sence that He hands out some sort of punishment or reward arbitrailly, any more than I see the judicial system as something that can take away my freedom and send me to prison. In my view, my own action are my own judge. And much the same way as I believe that I am indeed free to do anything that I decide I want to, I also know that there are some consequences to certain actions. For example, if I decide that I want to kill someone, I know that I can. The law may call it illegal, but the fact remains that I am perfectly free to make my own decision. Once I make that conscience decision, and take someones life, then once I am caught there is a very strong possiblity of punishment. But in my view, the legal system is not the one one that condems me, but my own actions.

I veiw my faith in the same way. I believe that my own actions, done either in accordance with my conscience or against it, are what judges me. In that sense, though I belive in God, I also believe in my own power to shape my future as I see fit. I think the fact that I still feel I can shoulder my own responsibilities for my own actions is what makes it possible for me to believe in God at all. And most likely the reason that I don't feel the need to convert people to my own faith is why I tend to avoid organized Christianity. Most churches I have been in, and admittedly it's not to say my experiences reflect on all churches, there has been an intolerance of other beliefs. They tend to feel that it is their duty to discredit other religons and have their own accepted. I don't feel the need. I do not believe that it is possible that every person, of every culture and background, to be able to form a single, united vision of what God is. Besides, in my (limited) experience, it seems to me that most religions share similar moral concepts, and differ mostly in the way they go about reaching their version of God. But that is nothing new, just consider the numerous Christian denominations. They all hold to certain moral concepts, but differ in church doctrine and cerimonial practices. To me, each individual is free to choose their own belief and practices.

Just my opinion of course.

My friends and family

I believe in me. The hand I look at, the stomach I scratch. I believe in my friends, who watch after me and protect me. I believe in my family who guides me and punishes me. My god/buddha/christ/allah is my friends and family. The ones who are truly, physically, emotionally, dedicatedly there all the time. Should I call it my own religion? No. Am I an athiest/agnostic/secular humi.... No. I am a Man.

I touch my face and I know I am here, I pick my friends up when they fall because they need help and I seek wisdom with my family when I need help.


It is irrelavent to me if or if not there is a presence above all this, because as of twenty years of my life I have yet to see him aid me. It has always been and always will be, my friends and family.

In my perception, there is a god.. a great sense of light a source of energy that created everything... a big ball of fire or some other spaceiestial (horrible spelling of a non existant word) mass that sparked it all.

Knowing that wont help me. I will not go to some church of contridictions (you know what I mean). I will not pray to some one elses perception of what is "god". I will not waste my time in prayer for good fortune, when I could be helping my friends and family achieve it ourselves.


Practice not good faith, practice being good to your family and friends. If in the end there is a grand judgement, you yourself remained true the whole time to what was important. And if there isnt, and were all destined worm food. Well you lived a good life.

thug

Re: My friends and family

Originally posted by RandomThug
Practice not good faith, practice being good to your family and friends. If in the end there is a grand judgement, you yourself remained true the whole time to what was important. And if there isnt, and were all destined worm food. Well you lived a good life.

thug

And with that, you have the basis of all religion.

The Linkmaster quotes again:

Originally posted by Aegis
*Enter SYM's most devot Atheist*

@Aegis: Whats your opinion then on this:

"Pascal's Wager":
"If you believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing -- but if you don't believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you will go to hell. Therefore it is foolish to be an atheist."
(Formulation quoted from the alt.atheism "Common Arguments" webpage - Pascal's Wager. )

Mind you - I'm not a "believer" myself - I just want to hear your POV on this.

For the more literary inclined I recommend Terry Pratchetts version:

This is very similar to the suggestion put forward by the Quirmian philosopher Ventre, who said, "Possibly the gods exist, and possibly they do not. So why not believe in them in any case? If it's all true you'll go to a lovely place when you die, and if it isn't then you've lost nothing, right?" When he died he woke up in a circle of gods holding nasty-looking sticks and one of them said, "We're going to show you what we think of Mr Clever D!ck in these parts..."
-- (Terry Pratchett, "Hogfather")

No worries,

Beldin

Point

The basis, you need not go any farther. There is no need. While the basis is one thing, the outcome is different. Good intentions and such are not always good deeds.

thug

Re: The Linkmaster quotes again:

Originally posted by Beldin
@Aegis: Whats your opinion then on this:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Pascal's Wager":
"If you believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing -- but if you don't believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you will go to hell. Therefore it is foolish to be an atheist."
(Formulation quoted from the alt.atheism "Common Arguments" webpage - Pascal's Wager. )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Mind you - I'm not a "believer" myself - I just want to hear your POV on this.

That is not entirly true. If one believes in God, but turns out to be incorrect, they have lost the spiritual aspect of their life. Most people hold God as their driving force for Religion. His presence there is a reassurance to those who follow these religions. If the God were to be proven non-existant, that would crumble all major(and probably minor as well) Monotheistic religions.

As for the Athiesim part. If it turns out that God really does exist, Atheists would not be condemned to Hell, because God is supposedly compassionate. Does the bible not teach to lead those who have gone astray? Well, this would be a case of that. If God does reall exist, then at judgement time, Atheist's, considering they have still led a good life, will be no more likely to burn in eternal damnnation then the Pope. The only difference is that the Atheist did not worship the deity, thus would be considered misguided, but would be allowed to repent for this mior "sin" in the stage of purgatory, before moving on.

"Pascal's Wager":
"If you believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing -- but if you don't believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you will go to hell. Therefore it is foolish to be an atheist."
(Formulation quoted from the alt.atheism "Common Arguments" webpage - Pascal's Wager. )

although, assuming the god of your choice pass judgement on you after death, believing 'just to be on the safe side' could easily be construed as far worse than just being a well behaved atheist. it's certainly far more cynical and devious.

Re: Re: The Linkmaster quotes again:

Originally posted by Aegis
That is not entirly true. If one believes in God, but turns out to be incorrect, they have lost the spiritual aspect of their life.

But assuming that it's impossible to know one way or the other until you die - then it won't matter, since you'd be dead.

Re: My friends and family

Originally posted by RandomThug
It is irrelavent to me if or if not there is a presence above all this, because as of twenty years of my life I have yet to see him aid me. It has always been and always will be, my friends and family.

<snip>

Knowing that wont help me. I will not go to some church of contridictions (you know what I mean). I will not pray to some one elses perception of what is "god". I will not waste my time in prayer for good fortune, when I could be helping my friends and family achieve it ourselves.

Practice not good faith, practice being good to your family and friends. If in the end there is a grand judgement, you yourself remained true the whole time to what was important. And if there isnt, and were all destined worm food. Well you lived a good life.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you someone who knows what he is talking about. Thug, agree 100%.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Pascal's Wager":
"If you believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing -- but if you don't believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you will go to hell. Therefore it is foolish to be an atheist."
(Formulation quoted from the alt.atheism "Common Arguments" webpage - Pascal's Wager. )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Although, say that I start believing in God, I will know, and always know, that I don't really believe in it, and I'll be living a lie, and IMO wasting my time. Also:

By Robnark: although, assuming the god of your choice pass judgement on you after death, believing 'just to be on the safe side' could easily be construed as far worse than just being a well behaved atheist. it's certainly far more cynical and devious.

Exactly.

Re: Re: My friends and family

Originally posted by Gaxx_Firkraag
Although, say that I start believing in God, I will know, and always know, that I don't really believe in it, and I'll be living a lie...

Not quite. You'll be living a lie according to the way you now feel, just as you are living a lie *now,* according to the way you'd feel then. This "lie," like this "truth," lies in the eye of the beholder.

Re: Re: Re: My friends and family

Originally posted by fable


Not quite. You'll be living a lie according to the way you now feel, just as you are living a lie *now,* according to the way you'd feel then. This "lie," like this "truth," lies in the eye of the beholder.

But that would still be living a lie. He would not be living true to his feelings and perceptions, thus making them untrue.

@Georgi: Very true indeed, thus if those who believe in God die, and there is no God, and they merely cease to exist, then they have technically lost nothing. For Atheists, when they die, and are proven right, they don't get the satisfaction of knowing it

Originally posted by Aegis
*Enter SYM's most devot Atheist*

I beg to differ - He was already here.

Originally posted by CM

My point was that there are experiences in this world. We learn we adapt and basically do good or evil deeds. But what is the use of living or of learning if they have no effect or outcome after death. If none of what i learn counts after i die, why should i live? I can kill myself now, skip the heart ache and pain (a very big part of present day life). I dont have to waste my time in college or with work or doing anything. Does this clear things up?

I have spent a lot of time in schools but do not consider it a waste of time. If I was to drop dead right now I would not regret that I went to university. If I live for another 40 years remembering just a bit of what I learned I will be even more chuffed.

Originally posted by Mr Sleep

I have heard it argued that aethism is somewhat of a contradiction anyway, the argument is that aetheism requires one to have already accepted the possibility of their being that religion/belief but decide not to accept it, rather than the agnostic who just doesn't know/care either way. By saying one is an aetheist it does direct a certain anti-belief. Not sure myself, but that is the arguement.

There is no contradiction here. I concede the possibility of god existing but consider it to be highly unlikely and so do not believe it. Sure you can say I believe in the non-existence of god but that is not a problem.

Originally posted by Beldin

"Pascal's Wager":
"If you believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing -- but if you don't believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you will go to hell. Therefore it is foolish to be an atheist."

There are two problems with pascal’s wager. 1 as terry prachett points out god is not (as he is usually described) somebody who would accept that kind of faith. I think that if we seriously contemplate what god would count as bona fide believer then somebody following Pascal’s advice would not be it.
2. It is possible that you can force youself to believe things that you have no reason to believe but I would consider it an unhealthy road to go down. You would in effect be trying to trick yourself - I would worry that once you have started that kind of thing would you do it again? Better to remain honest with oneself and face the flames with stoicism.

Re: Re: Re: Re: My friends and family

Originally posted by Aegis
@Georgi: Very true indeed, thus if those who believe in God die, and there is no God, and they merely cease to exist, then they have technically lost nothing. For Atheists, when they die, and are proven right, they don't get the satisfaction of knowing it

We will just have to live with the satisfaction of being right while we live then