Do You Believe In God?

[aaronz77]

I don't believe in any God. I feel it's healthier for people to believe in God and organized religion. They live longer statistically. I think it can be argued either way for or against God. Personally, I think when we die... that's it. Nothing special, no participation trophy and no eternal hell for robbing a liquor store or banging your friends wife. If someone does believe in God that's fine by me, it's not hurting anyone and it's none of my business.

 

[SonicRegret]

it's just because I feel that it doesn't really effect my life in a positive or negative way, you know, being an ex christian for 7 years now. Because I can tell you now that my family is composed of really devoted Christians, and I personally see no point to it. Sometimes I think it over because every now and then I realize that im the ONE and ONLY person in my family has been baptized, which is a whole other thing on it's own to think about.

 

[RodrigoDavy]

What about the witness accounts of Jesus? That's what I meant with my statement. Smoke = witness accounts and belief. Fire = Jesus.

Your question is if Jesus existed or not? From what I read, it's almost universally accepted by historians that Jesus did exist. It's however very difficult to determine whether he was the son of God and miracle maker, or simply a hoax like the jews from the time believed.

What I can say is that there are people that claim to have magical powers or able to make miracles even today, some of them have many followers too. Jesus wasn't the first and certainly not the last.

It might as well be true, but we live in a world where people truly believed in three-headed dragons, woman that turned people into stone, witches and etcetera... There's no way of telling, that's why for my part I require more convincing evidence

 

[Jack_Sparrow]

http://www.everystudent.com/wires/Godreal.html

 

[RodrigoDavy]

http://www.everystudent.com/wires/Godreal.html

This article argue that DNA acts like a computer program and that since it doesn't exist a software that wasn't designed by a programmer, the DNA must have been written by someone, that someone being God.
This is actually an interesting idea and I had to think for 20 minutes to get to a conclusion myself.

I think although the idea is good, it works on the assumption that the DNA has to have a writer. This is a natural assumption because a Programming Language or a Natural Language are very restrict about its vocabulary, semantics and syntax. You can't expect random letters to make a full comprehensible message or random commands to make a useful functioning software. This is not true for the DNA however, DNA is known to be prone to mutation and, in fact, there are bad and good mutation. In a message or a computer program, mutation is undesirable as it corrupts the meaning of the message or the function of the program.

The reason "There has never existed a computer program that wasn't designed...[whether it is] a code, or a program, or a message given through a language" is because it needs to be designed by someone. A message is only useful if it has meaning and a software is only useful if it has utility. I don't believe this is the case for the DNA though, a DNA doesn't need to have a meaning or an utility.

It doesn't mean it wasn't written by a superior intelligent being, but I argue that it could just as well be random chemicals that got combined in a way that worked and through mutation and replication managed to get more and more complex with time, coupled with Darwin's law of Evolution would make the most effective DNA combinations to be the ones that survived.

Thanks for this article, bro. It really got me thinking!

 

[Subtle Demise]

I wish I could still believe. In the depths of an extreme panic attack, I sometimes find myself trying to talk to God hoping for an answer or some kind of sign to tell me I'll be ok when I die.
I mean Jesus Christ, I'm almost 30 years old and the thought of death still gives me horrible panic attacks.
It doesn't scare me like it used to, but I think if I hadn't been raised to be Christian, I could have dealt with it betterb
But damn, becoming atheist was such a huge weight off my shoulders lol.

 

[Jacklack3]

Welcome to where your friendships break!

 

[Jack_Sparrow]

This article argue that DNA acts like a computer program and that since it doesn't exist a software that wasn't designed by a programmer, the DNA must have been written by someone, that someone being God.
This is actually an interesting idea and I had to think for 20 minutes to get to a conclusion myself.

I think although the idea is good, it works on the assumption that the DNA has to have a writer. This is a natural assumption because a Programming Language or a Natural Language are very restrict about its vocabulary, semantics and syntax. You can't expect random letters to make a full comprehensible message or random commands to make a useful functioning software. This is not true for the DNA however, DNA is known to be prone to mutation and, in fact, there are bad and good mutation. In a message or a computer program, mutation is undesirable as it corrupts the meaning of the message or the function of the program.

The reason "There has never existed a computer program that wasn't designed...[whether it is] a code, or a program, or a message given through a language" is because it needs to be designed by someone. A message is only useful if it has meaning and a software is only useful if it has utility. I don't believe this is the case for the DNA though, a DNA doesn't need to have a meaning or an utility.

It doesn't mean it wasn't written by a superior intelligent being, but I argue that it could just as well be random chemicals that got combined in a way that worked and through mutation and replication managed to get more and more complex with time, coupled with Darwin's law of Evolution would make the most effective DNA combinations to be the ones that survived.

Thanks for this article, bro. It really got me thinking!

No prob, it got me thinking too, and i figured i'd share it!

 

[amoulton]

I don't believe in any God. I feel it's healthier for people to believe in God and organized religion. They live longer statistically. I think it can be argued either way for or against God. Personally, I think when we die... that's it. Nothing special, no participation trophy and no eternal hell for robbing a liquor store or banging your friends wife. If someone does believe in God that's fine by me, it's not hurting anyone and it's none of my business.

would love a link on these statistics

 

[Gamefreakjf11]

No, I've never been presented with any factual evidence proving his/her existence so therefore I don't by default.

 

[smf]

I don't know. It's just strange. My conscience knows I'm inside this body. How the hell did my conscience come into existence? Animals don't have this shit. Why do I?

Animals do have "this shit". Someone even managed to teach some monkeys the concept of money, one of the unexpected things was one of the females turned to prostitution. We assume that animals aren't the same because it means we can treat them badly, similar to how people of certain religions feel it's ok to treat people of other religions badly.

At one time, you didn't exist. Then you are born. They you say, "Hey, I'm awake!". It's hard to explain what I'm talking about.

It is hard to explain, which is why people take the easy way out and blame god for everything.

What about the witness accounts of Jesus? That's what I meant with my statement. Smoke = witness accounts and belief. Fire = Jesus.

Someone called Jesus probably existed roughly around the time they said he did, although they supposedly got the dates all wrong. None of the stories were written in English, they were translated by people with an agenda. The bible was pulled together after everyone had died and therefore we can't even be sure if the people it writes about would agree with what was written.

and the issue wasn't that he was telling people the earth moved around the Sun. If I recall correctly, a lot of it had to do with Galileo’s science being suspect/incomplete (which it was; part of his support was that the tides were just the water sloshing around the Earth like if you were to rotate a glass of water, which was just flat out wrong), Galileo going behind the Pope's back making him look bad, and just being an abrasive personality.

That is retcon after the science proved the catholics wrong. Galileo was right about the sun being the centre of the galaxy and the earth revolved around it, but they purely convincted him of heresy because that contradicted scripture. Being abrasive and making the pope look bad isn't illegal. He may not have been tried for heresy if he had kept quiet and pretended to believe the lies told by the catholics. Which is essentially why some religions appear to have such support. Like not everyone in North Korea believes Kim Jong's lies, but their lives depend on the outward appearance of that.

It doesn't mean it wasn't written by a superior intelligent being, but I argue that it could just as well be random chemicals that got combined in a way that worked and through mutation and replication managed to get more and more complex with time, coupled with Darwin's law of Evolution would make the most effective DNA combinations to be the ones that survived.

It definitely is just random and the creatures that were viable were able to reproduce, the ones that weren't viable didn't. However religions were made up before we understood DNA therefore they weren't able to get their story ahead of time, so now they have to make up intelligent design. However if we were designed then it's pretty obvious that we weren't intelligently designed.

Our bodies react in ways that make sure our DNA is reproduced, rather than make us happy because creatures who don't reproduce their DNA will disappear.

 

[Father Crilly]

Our bodies react in ways that make sure our DNA is reproduced, rather than make us happy because creatures who don't reproduce their DNA will disappear.

That's the thing. There's no point to life existing.

I feel as if there is something intelligent keeping life in existence. A perfect food chain and the whole birth and death cycle.

A dog doesn't care about its descendants after it's dead. It wouldn't care if they all died or not. Evolution is keeping animals alive. Why?

My answer is God. Or some smart AI called "nature" who is in charge of keeping everything alive.

 

[aaronz77]

would love a link on these statistics

I'm sorry, I think I was recalling a false sensationalized news story now that I actually look for the source. Damn local news. Only thing I can come up with are some "faith in religion = happier people" studies that are from sketchy sources. Even if it were 100% fact though wouldn't you think it'd be purely psychological?

 

[smf]

That's the thing. There's no point to life existing.

You are right, there is no point. Why does there have to be a point for something to exist?

I feel as if there is something intelligent keeping life in existence. A perfect food chain and the whole birth and death cycle.

What makes you think that life needs an external influence to keep it going? Humans are perfectly capable of creating and destroying life on their own. The food chain isn't perfect, it evolves too.

A dog doesn't care about its descendants after it's dead. It wouldn't care if they all died or not. Evolution is keeping animals alive. Why?

You're assuming they don't, but there is a lot of evidence that suggests they do.

Animals aren't kept alive, they exist because their parents reproduced. Their parents want to reproduce because it's a genetic predisposition to reproduce, which they inherited from their parents. If your DNA mutates so you don't want to reproduce then very quickly that DNA will die out.

My answer is God. Or some smart AI called "nature" who is in charge of keeping everything alive

Evolution + DNA is essentially smart AI. However like all AI it doesn't do it because it's made a choice that it understands, it's intelligence is artificial. Our brains just make it seem magical, so we invent a god to explain it all.

 

[Nightwish]

Even if it were 100% fact though wouldn't you think it'd be purely psychological?

That's still useful for society.

 

[grossaffe]

Someone called Jesus probably existed roughly around the time they said he did, although they supposedly got the dates all wrong. None of the stories were written in English, they were translated by people with an agenda. The bible was pulled together after everyone had died and therefore we can't even be sure if the people it writes about would agree with what was written.

Someone called Jesus? Unlikely. Someone called Jeshua? Yeah, he probably existed.

That is retcon after the science proved the catholics wrong. Galileo was right about the sun being the centre of the galaxy and the earth revolved around it, but they purely convincted him of heresy because that contradicted scripture. Being abrasive and making the pope look bad isn't illegal. He may not have been tried for heresy if he had kept quiet and pretended to believe the lies told by the catholics. Which is essentially why some religions appear to have such support. Like not everyone in North Korea believes Kim Jong's lies, but their lives depend on the outward appearance of that.

Well for starters, I think you're getting yourself mixed up here, because Galileo wasn't speaking of the Galaxy, and the Sun is most certainly not the center of it
As for making the Pope look bad not being illegal, well actually in the theocratic state of the times, it was. Now whether it should be is a different story. That being said, It's hard to retcon letters of correspondence. Having gone and looked up the actual history instead of trying to go from memory from something I once heard, a the issue came down to a book he published: Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. The new Pope, Pope Urban VIII, had taken the Papacy replacing a predecessor who had silenced Galileo. Urban, however, was open to Galileo's ideas. He did have a condition for Galileo, though, which was to discuss the Copernican model as a hypothetical and not a fact. For the time, this was quite an olive branch being extended to him.

Anyways, getting back to his book, he had written it as a dialogue (duh) between three characters. An academic arguing the Copernican model, a neutral intellectual, and a religious figure arguing the Ptolemaic model (named 'Simplicio', likely a double entendre implying the character to be simple-minded). That religious character was not written to be someone seen as intelligent or reasonable, so when he took words spoken by Pope Urban and put them into that character's mouth, he was asking for trouble.

Also, look at an overview of day 4 in the book. That's where the tides are discussed and Simplicio is the one contending the Moon controls the tides while his Academic character argues otherwise. OOPS! Guess you should've listened to Kepler on that one, Galileo.[/QUOTE]

 

[RodrigoDavy]

You are right, there is no point. Why does there have to be a point for something to exist?

Once I had a discussion with a friend about something I did. He was really mad not because of what I did itself, but because it made no sense. He kept complaining about how it made no sense what I did, then I said angrily "It doesn't have to make sense!"

I like to revisit this moment sometimes because it reminds me "not everything needs to be explained or have a point" and also "people sometimes makes mistakes and there's no reasonable explanation, they just do". Taking this ideology to life I guess it's not so important why we are alive, we should just feel happy that we are and make most of the time we have here.

 

[smf]

Someone called Jesus? Unlikely. Someone called Jeshua? Yeah, he probably existed.

I'm not prepared to write posts in Hebrew, especially when there is no real consensus on how it should be spelt. It

That religious character was not written to be someone seen as intelligent or reasonable, so when he took words spoken by Pope Urban and put them into that character's mouth, he was asking for trouble.

While he may have been asking for trouble, he was tried for heresy because he contradicted scripture by saying that the earth goes around the sun rather than everything going round the earth. Are you saying Pope Urban was intelligent and reasonable? To me Galileo appears to be right on the mark, the way the Pope reacted pretty much proves it.
Pope Urban VIII demanded that his words were included in the book, which was a rather unintelligent thing to do. You get picked as Pope if you are prepared to peddle the same old lines, not because you are intelligent and reasonable.

Even in 1990 Cardinal Ratzinger justified Galileos treatment as logical, he went to become Pope Benedict XVI.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair#Historiography

The current Pope at least appears to not be in it for the money, which previous Popes were.

 

[Foxi4]

I believe in a God, but within very specific boundaries. I find it hard to believe that the universe just appeared out of nothing - regardless of how the universe came to be, something initially triggered the reaction. I was brought up in a Catholic family, so as far as nomenclature is concerned, I believe in the Christian God, but I don't think that's relevant in any shape or form - God is God, however you choose to call it. In addition to being religious, I'm also a big believer in science - I think the two go hand-in-hand, not against eachother. Religion shouldn't be used as a crutch that explains the world around you, that's not its purpose, that's the purpose of science. As a very wise man said once, science answers the questions of "what?" and "how?", what it doesn't answer is the question of "why?" - it's not equipped to answer that question, that's a question for religion and philosophy, so all three have a place in our lives without conflict. I don't treat the Bible as gospel (pun intended) and I don't think it should be treated that way. It's a simple set of guidelines and stories compiled over many years to have a specific moral message, it's not a source of historical or scientific evidence (although many of its fragments have historical significance and some degree of accuracy) of anything, it's meant to teach life lessons. It shouldn't be taken in wholesale, it's supposed to make you think about certain things, certain dilemmas we all face in life and help you distinguish right from wrong. All in all, I try to find a Golden Mean here - I'm somewhere in the center, taking in all the wonders science and technology brings us, but still being mindful of the lessons religion teaches us - being kind to one another being the chief one.

 

[Aurora Wright]

I don't believe, I'm actually an atheist about the dogmatic/revealed religions, and agnostic about the general idea of (an) "higher being(s)".
As an example, I once read about the possibility that, due to certain limits in physical constants, our universe could be a huge simulation, in that case our "Gods" would be the beings who are running the simulation

Animals do have "this shit". Someone even managed to teach some monkeys the concept of money, one of the unexpected things was one of the females turned to prostitution. We assume that animals aren't the same because it means we can treat them badly, similar to how people of certain religions feel it's ok to treat people of other religions badly.

I agree with everything you said, but I'm missing the point here. Even if it's true (a friend of mine is a biologist and neuroscientist with a PhD and he once told me about studies which found a "proto-morality" in primates and some other species) what's the link with the way they should get treated? As you said, morality is relative, objective facts can (and do) only influence our own personal morality by means of empathy, personal values and things like that. Then, if we get to agree on what should be "moral" and what shouldn't, with time we define the morality of our society.