Do you believe in God?

[superbike81]

Morals change from god to god. Why is it moral for one culture to sacrifice children to their god(s) and not another. Man determines morals based on the current social climate. It was moral less than 100 years ago for a "God-fearing Christian" to own a slave but luckily level heads prevailed and SOCIETY (not god) decided that was immoral.

 

[Animal_Mother]

I only read the last couple of pages and there are some very valid arguments on both the science and faith sides. As an Agnostic I believe that the answer is possibly a little bit of both sides. I also think that given our relatively limited understanding of the universe, that none of us have even the slightest clue about the true nature of things. 500 years ago, the earth was flat. As a species, I believe we are like infants and that we are at a stage where we only see what is right in front of us. The faith vs. science argument is one that is never ending and in my opinion, pointless. I think that we should always question what we think we know.

The universe as I see it, organizes itself in a way that seems almost too perfect to be random, but at the same time doesn't seem to have been blinked into existence in it's current state. What if science proves the existence of god? We should spend less time trying to prove each other wrong, and more time working together to find the truth. My Southern Comfort and I thank you for reading.

 

[Animal_Mother]

Morals change from god to god. Why is it moral for one culture to sacrifice children to their god(s) and not another. Man determines morals based on the current social climate. It was moral less than 100 years ago for a "God-fearing Christian" to own a slave but luckily level heads prevailed and SOCIETY (not god) decided that was immoral.

Morals, I think, are extremely subjective. Did God send down moral law to man? Who knows? There is so much difference between one religion's morals and anothers that it seems like many of them were simply made by man to enforce what a particular culture's rulers thought was acceptable behavior. But then there is a short list of morals that many different cultures have in common. Murder, adultery, stealing. Almost everyone can agree that those are things you shouldn't do.

But then again, when it comes down to basic, animal survival instinct, even those can go out the window. Imagine if we lived in a Mad Max style post-apocalyptic world and you had the choice between letting your family die of starvation or other the only other option was to kill someone and steal their food? We like to think of ourselves as doing the right, moral thing, but when push comes to shove, what would you really do?

 

[superbike81]

Survival instinct goes above all other. Anyone who says they would take the "moral high road" in a life or death situation probably doesn't deserve to live anyways.

 

[fitftw]

everyone deserves to live until they kill someone. Eye for an eye.

 

[Encyclopedia]

everyone deserves to live until they kill someone. Eye for an eye.

What about accidentaly?

 

[BobK]

And btw, I'll get back to my responses above later. 👍

While you're at it, could I trouble you to respond to my recent comments as well?

 

[huskeR32]

Quotes.

As has already been said, these quotes are all purely speculative opinions from people who obviously have an existing bias towards religion.

Frankly, when somebody shows a willingness to believe in something without evidence, I can't look at them as an "expert" on these theories that we've been discussing. My knowledge on theoretical physics is admittedly lacking. So when I want somebody to explain it to me, I want that to be a person who actually studied the theory, and is simply providing me with an explanation that was arrived at by an open mind. These people that you quote obviously don't have an open mind about it, because they're choosing unfounded ideas over theories backed by evidence.

And from our perspective the universe is very fine tuned for the possibility of life.
For life to exist on earth an abundant supply of carbon is needed. From what I've gathered, Carbon is formed either by combining three helium nuclei, or by combining the nuclei of helium and beryllium. For this to happen, the nuclear ground state energy levels have to be fine-tuned with respect to each other. This phenomenon is called 'resonance'. If the variation were more than 1 percent either way, the universe could not contain life.

Theoretical physicist Paul Davies said that if the ratio of the nuclear strong force to the electromagnetic field had been different by 1 part in 10^16, no stars would have been formed.

It is argued that an alteration in the ratio of the expansion and contraction forces by as little as 1 part in 10^55 at the Planck time (just 10^-43 seconds after the origin of the universe) would have led ether to too rapid an expansion of the universe with no galaxies forming or too slow an expansion with consequence rapid collapse.

I could go on.

And you do. Again and again. This cycle is going to keep repeating over and over again until you take the time to truly understand what infinite probability implies.

Everything that's possible to happen, no matter how improbable it seems to the inhabitants of our tiny little rock, will happen. Be amazed by our "fine-tuned" situation all you want. But in the end, it had to happen. Somewhere, at some time, these conditions had to happen. Lucky for us, here and now is the place and time that it did.

The fact that it did is proof of nothing more than simple mathematics playing out. End of story.

As I said above, the astronomer with the finite universe assumption.
And you have no evidence that the laws of nature will continue. Prove to me that the sun will rise tomorrow. By accepting that the sun will rise tomorrow (which is faith) I can continue with progressing my knowledge and understanding.

Baloney. Faith means believing in something without evidence. You have evidence (the sun coming up every day for the last few billion years) that the sun is going to come up tomorrow. So faith is obviously a completely incorrect word for the situation.

 

[Zenith]

I don't understand people that come in here are say "Oh yeah there's lots of good evidence for both sides!" in spite of the dozens and dozens of sources and examples that have been cited and the others that have been disproved.

No. No there is not. All the evidence is on one side. The only thing theists have is the ability to point to lack of evidence science has yet to uncover (or cannot) and hope to god that we don't fill them in.

 

[superbike81]

everyone deserves to live until they kill someone. Eye for an eye.

Survival of the fittest.

If someone is threatening your family you are going to wait until they kill one of them before you kill him?

 

[huskeR32]

Survival of the fittest.

If someone is threatening your family you are going to wait until they kill one of them before you kill him?

That is not even close to what "Survival of the fittest" means.

 

[superbike81]

I never said it was. You see that big line break between my thoughts? Different thoughts are different.

 

[huskeR32]

Then what is "Survival of the fittest" referring to

I can only assume it refers to that quote, since that's all you put in your post...

 

[Zenith]

I never said it was. You see that big line break between my thoughts? Different thoughts are different.

Yeah because when I'm reading and I see a single line between one phrase and another I know immediately that they the two thoughts completely unrelated. Especially if they both touch on the subject of survival. I mean DUH.

When a writer does that it makes him look like a fool.

That second part was referring to factual inaccuracies, obviously. It's got a line break. Completely unrelated.

 

[superbike81]

Then what is "Survival of the fittest" referring to

I can only assume it refers to that quote, since that's all you put in your post...

Survival of the fittest is referencing the entire subject of life and death, this entire thread.

The second part was referring specifically to the quote.

Let me do a huge line break so you know this is a different thought.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Christianity is apparently on the decline anyways, hopefully that trend continues until it's considered nothing more than a cult. I doubt it will happen in my lifetime, but hopefully in the future man can grow enough mentally to not have to rely on this fantasy called "God."

 

[huskeR32]

Survival of the fittest is referencing the entire subject of life and death, this entire thread.

The second part was referring specifically to the quote.

Let me do a huge line break so you know this is a different thought.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Christianity is apparently on the decline anyways, hopefully that trend continues until it's considered nothing more than a cult. I doubt it will happen in my lifetime, but hopefully in the future man can grow enough mentally to not have to rely on this fantasy called "God."

You're still not making any sense to me (maybe just me). The only recent discussion about life and death was the quote you now say you weren't referring to with you survival of the fittest comment. No matter, your obnoxiously large page break makes me want to ignore you now, so I don't much care anymore.

 

[Liquid]

Christianity is apparently on the decline anyway

Depends where you live.

In the UK, we are much less fascinated with religion than the people are in America. Especially in politics. Religion plays almost no part in British political debates. We're not too bothered, really. We do have people (not politicians) who have problems with non-Christians, but we have far less people who take Christianity very seriously. I know that as a point of interest, the speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, is Jewish and not Christian. But this is never, ever mentioned and is of no significance to his job. And rightly so. I mention this in comparison to the debate about Obama's religion and general religious right wing politicians in the US.

Sometimes the Archbishop of Canterbury will tell us what he thinks about a particular issue like the welfare state or the protests outside St. Paul's from a moral point of view but not many people pay particular attention to what he says. After all; seperation of church and state.

I find it quite astonishing how often 'God', 'Jesus' and 'Christian' are referenced to in American politics, usually but not always by those on the right.

 

[Dotini]

I find it quite astonishing how often 'God', 'Jesus' and 'Christian' are referenced to in American politics, usually but not always by those on the right.

We even have Christians who think that Catholics and Mormons are not Christians. Mormonism is growing rapidly. They think God is a real being on a real nearby planet!

Reverend Al Sharpton is a very funny guy on the left.

Respectfully,
Steve

 

[niky]

We even have Christians who think that Catholics and Mormons are not Christians. Mormonism is growing rapidly. They think God is a real being on a real nearby planet!

Reverend Al Sharpton is a very funny guy on the left.

Respectfully,
Steve

There are Christians of every stripe who do that. Which is why watching local televangelists (here) is such fun. All the sniping, back-biting, bad-mouthing, fire-and-brimstoning...

 

[CraftyLandShark]

Survival instinct goes above all other. Anyone who says they would take the "moral high road" in a life or death situation probably doesn't deserve to live anyways.

While the first sentence is true, it evades the essential point of the argument. As a species, we sought to avoid being exposed to life-or-death situations on a day-to-day basis by forming communities. Our morality today, more or less, is still based on the idea of maintaining these communities in a healthy, productive manner.

Superbike, I've heard the sort of situations you describe called "lifeboat ethics", a term I rather like. It's the dramatic exception to the rule, and I don't think ought to enter in to a discussion of this sort.

That said, the question to Tankass still stands - do you believe a proper code of moral behavior can come only from God?

Depends where you live

...

I find it quite astonishing how often 'God', 'Jesus' and 'Christian' are referenced to in American politics, usually but not always by those on the right.

This.

Ask any observer of American politics, and they'll agree: it would be virtually impossible for a candidate for major public office here to get nominated, much less elected, if he didn't at some point outwardly profess faith in some version of the Judaic God. (Unless that god was Allah. In which case, forget even considering SEEKING nomination).

 

[huskeR32]

Ask any observer of American politics, and they'll agree: it would be virtually impossible for a candidate for major public office here to get nominated, much less elected, if he didn't at some point outwardly profess faith in some version of the Judaic God. (Unless that god was Allah. In which case, forget even considering SEEKING nomination).

This is unfortunately very true. One of my least favorite things about politics here.

 

[niky]

Unless that god was Allah. In which case, forget even considering SEEKING nomination).

Makes you wonder how Barrack Hussein Obama got elected, huh?

Gotta pander to the voters, really. Which is why aforementioned President never uses his middle name... might scare off them white folks...

 

[homeforsummer]

You're still not making any sense to me (maybe just me). The only recent discussion about life and death was the quote you now say you weren't referring to with you survival of the fittest comment. No matter, your obnoxiously large page break makes me want to ignore you now, so I don't much care anymore.

It's not just you.

If I'd seen a post quoting another, followed by two very short sentences, I'd assume they were both referring to the quoted post, rather than:

"Quote"

"Unrelated statement"

"Related statement"

Whether the statements were unrelated to the quoted post or not, it's a very poor posting style. Not to mention that "survival of the fittest" has nothing to do with this thread anyway, so it wasn't only confusing, but irrelevant too...

 

[fitftw]

Faith means believing in something without evidence. You have evidence (the sun coming up every day for the last few billion years) that the sun is going to come up tomorrow. So faith is obviously a completely incorrect word for the situation.

Prove that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. You don't have any evidence that the sun will come up tomorrow. You just assume based on the fact that it has risen for this long, it will surely rise tomorrow. But you don't KNOW that it will and thus you cannot PROVE it. Therefore, you have faith. You do not have the ability to see into the future. Just like you can't prove that you will wake up tomorrow morning. You have faith. Faith = believe. You don't WANT to believe that you won't wake up tomorrow, obviously because most people don't have suicidal thoughts like that, but it certainly CAN happen.

PS. Suns don't rise. We rotate around it, and it rotates around the milky way galaxy. It can burn out, some kind of weird event CAN happen. Just because it hasn't doesn't mean it can't. We can all die tomorrow for all I know, stop spinning on an axis, say goodbye to gravity. Nothing is permanent. Nothing is promised.

 

[Liquid]

PS. Suns don't rise. We rotate around it, and it rotates around the milky way galaxy. It can burn out, some kind of weird event CAN happen. Just because it hasn't doesn't mean it can't.

Of course the sun doesn't, but it's logical to describe it as 'rising' and 'setting' because that's how we see it from our perspective.

 

[fitftw]

Of course the sun doesn't, but it's logical to describe it as 'rising' and 'setting' because that's how we see it from our perspective.

Who cares about our perspective? We are specks of human waste. Look at things for how they really are. Think outside the box.

I like what AnimalMother said a page back about how we are still in an infantile phase as a species. We're like a 2 year old talking gibberish and just plain not understanding anything in life.

 

[Liquid]

Unrelated tripe is unrelated.

We know the sun doesn't actually rise and set, but our rotation around the sun makes it look as though it does. Simple.

Heliocentrism vs. Geocentrism. What does this have to do with the existance of God again?

 

[fitftw]

God was most likely invented by people because there was NOTHING TO DO BACK THEN besides work. They needed a reason for why they had NOTHING TO DO. So they came up with God so they didn't all kill themselves for having NOTHING TO DO.

Now we have plenty to do, so we don't need god anymore. Maybe GT5 is god.

 

[guralka]

I have no Idea if there is a 'God' but if there is, Im 100% certain that no organisation, religion, or person on this planet knows anything about Him/her/it or represents him/her/it.



ps. if there was a god, id be no1 in the leader boards and have a P4 in my GT5 garage,,,,,LOL

 

[Vince_Fiero]

For Tankass:

I'm still curious as to how you can claim that moral law requires a law-giver, which you call God.

I see that point, in the thread on Human Rights, we would see a moral as something that respects Human Rights, and you would have Human Rights even without any subjective influence, but out of pure logic.