What is your religion?

[Juska]

I am a Christian.

I would not classify you as an atheist Shadow, if you believe that there is something out there controlling or influencing the universe then you believe in some kind of "god" even if it has not been "discovered" yet.

I do in part agree with your whole point of mankind having yet to discover God, He has told us about himself and on rare occasions revealed himself to us, but we have yet to "discover" him. Although, with every human advancement we see a little more of His work. So in the end it takes faith to replace to certainty gained through discovery, but of course faith is an intrinsic part of everyday life.

[Shadow]

Ah, but the word religion implies all kinds of things. Faith for one. I have no faith in whatever is out there, if anything. It simply exists, or doesn't, and my faith has nothing to do with that. So I am not in any way religious in the conventional sense. Religion also implies worship, which I see no point in, since this thing has no affect on my life.

When i say discover god, what I really mean is "explain the universe." I think science has the ability to explain everything out there, assuming humans are around long enough to do it, and when we do, god won't exist because it will be a known entity and faith in it will no longer serve any purpose. You don't need faith in something that you know exists or doesn't exist. It just is or isn't.

This is where I bump up against the logic of religion. Faith implies an uncertainty. If you were certain of god's existence, you wouldn't need faith.

[Juska]

I am certain of God's existence because of my faith.

I agree that humans have the capacity to reveal and comprehend everything that God has done and that eventually we will see that every road leads to him, but it will still take faith to believe. Moreover, even if you could prove that something is perfectly true there will still be people who will not accept the truth of a statement no matter what evidence is placed in front of them.

Lets take the air you breathe for example and say your entire life you've lived in a sealed environment and have never left it and then suddenly you get device that measure oxygen levels outside of your sealed environment, the device proves that their is oxygen out there, you've even run tests on animals and they have lived out there, but it still takes faith in all these things, in yourself, in your work, that when you walk outside and breathe that air that you are not going to die (from asphyxiation) .  That's hypothetical of course.

Or take for example the world around you, you know that's it's real because your senses tell you it's real, but you also know that your senses can be fooled by things to replicate reality. It takes faith to believe that the very minute that you sit there reading this that you are actually sitting there reading this.

So what I'm trying to show is that faith is tied into everything and that it still takes faith to believe something that is without a doubt 100% infallible.   

I understand the purpose of the universe, it's purpose is to glorify the Creator.

[Blood Wake]

all I know is that none of the religions that we know of are correct, there could be a god that created the universe, but it definitely wasn't the christian god, I honestly believe that the world would be a lot better if people would stop believing in such fairy tails and live life for themselves.

in the words of my friend Mitch: "I think God is like barney for adults, God is for people who need something to believe in when they can't believe in themselves."

edit:

our "creator" doesn't do anything for us. when he actually gives proof of his existance or does something good for someone, I'll believe in him.

there was a study that showed people in the hospital all for the same thing.

about 33% of those people were prayed for and they knew it

about 33% were prayed for without knowing it

and about 33% were not prayed for and they knew it.

In these thirds there weren't much difference, but the group that had the most deaths in the end was the one with people being prayed for that knew it.

so continue to pray, I'm sure you'll make a huge difference in someone's life

[Shadow]

Moreover, even if you could prove that something is perfectly true there will still be people who will not accept the truth of a statement no matter what evidence is placed in front of them.

That requires stupidity, not faith. If someone clings to faith when the validity of their faith has been proven wrong, that person is an idiot.

Lets take the air you breathe for example and say your entire life you've lived in a sealed environment and have never left it and then suddenly you get device that measure oxygen levels outside of your sealed environment, the device proves that their is oxygen out there, you've even run tests on animals and they have lived out there, but it still takes faith in all these things, in yourself, in your work, that when you walk outside and breathe that air that you are not going to die (from asphyxiation) .  That's hypothetical of course.

It doesn't take faith, it takes confidence in your own ability to carry out the tests, make the equipment, etc. It's a matter of whether or not you made a mistake, not of faith.

It takes faith to believe that the very minute that you sit there reading this that you are actually sitting there reading this.

No, it just takes not being overly paranoid. I suppose it is possible that we are all in a giant simulation, but faith has nothing to do with the fact that I don't think we are, I simply think that because it is logical and far more likely than the alternative.

I understand the purpose of the universe, it's purpose is to glorify the Creator.

Fine, but if the creator is a mindless particle, then who gives a crap? Certainly not the particle, so let's just live to glorify ourselves. And until proven otherwise, I see no reason to invent gods to worship on the offchance I get it right - I am going to find whatever god is through something other than guesswork.

[Daryn]

im the only buddhist :P

[Blood Wake]

well cool, buddhism is more about your own spirituality than worshipping a god right?

Shadow = cool, and smart, and right

[Gen. Volkov]

I guess what we disagree on is our definition of God, then. The God of the Bible sounds absolutely absurd to me. I can go into details of why later if anyone cares to hear them. When i say "some higher power" I don't even necessarily mean some sentient thing, I just mean forces in the universe that we don't yet understand, and that could be anything from something sentient to an as yet undiscovered particle  or force that was responsible for the big bang. But I definitely think that god is knowable, we just have't discoveredd "him" yet. So in that way, I am not agnostic.  In a way, god is the sum total of everything that science has yet to explain.

I'm not arguing about the God of the Bible, as I explained, that god is a representation of exactly what you are talking about, the unknown. But yes, I would say you are not an agnostic, and perhaps even something of a theist, if you think God is knowable. I believe that he is ultimately not knowable, in any form. Science will never advance to the point to be able to test for God, in my opinion.

So no, I am absolutely 100% convinced that the God who caused the flood doesn't exist, I am just unsure of what does. So I guess that could be called agnisticism, but to a Christian I am an atheist, since I don't believe in their god, or any god that has followers on this earth.

I wouldn't really call that agnosticism, as I understand it, but I do agree that to a Christian, you would be an athiest.

No, it just takes not being overly paranoid. I suppose it is possible that we are all in a giant simulation, but faith has nothing to do with the fact that I don't think we are, I simply think that because it is logical and far more likely than the alternative.

Actually, Juska is correct. You are taking it on faith that you are actually here, typing on a computer to other people. All we can really know is that we exist, we take it on faith that the world around us perceived through our senses also exists. It's not a matter of logic and reasoning, because we simply can't calculate the odds that we aren't being fooled by some being more powerful than ourselves, whether it be a simulation like the Matrix, or Descartes' great trickster.

[Shadow]

Science will never advance to the point to be able to test for God, in my opinion.

What I am saying is that that will never be necessary - once we get to the point that we could do something like that, there would be nothing left to test ^_^

and perhaps even something of a theist, if you think God is knowable.

I only use the word God here to make the arguing easier - I don't think god is knowable because I don't think there is god, I simply think that there are things out there that we have yet to understand, and if calling those things God makes everyone else happy then I see no reason not to. These things are knowable, we just don't know them yet.

[Gen. Volkov]

What I am saying is that that will never be necessary - once we get to the point that we could do something like that, there would be nothing left to test ^_^

So then you ultimately believe if there is a "God" he is just another facet of the universe, and not outside it in some way? Interesting. I don't know if I agree, because I don't think we'll ever get to a point where we know all that there is to know, but interesting idea nonetheless.

I only use the word God here to make the arguing easier - I don't think god is knowable because I don't think there is god, I simply think that there are things out there that we have yet to understand, and if calling those things God makes everyone else happy then I see no reason not to. These things are knowable, we just don't know them yet.

I see. Well, I suppose that makes sense, though if there truly is a supernatural being that exists outside of space and time, I think your idea pretty much goes out the window. Since that is the concept of "God" many religions ultimately adhere too, I don't think it's ever going to be knowable that a God of that sort exists, unless he/she/it chooses to reveal himself/herself/itself to us in some testable way. Even if that particular kind of God is just a explanation for the unknown, the concept is still not a testable one.

[Shadow]

I think that it is possible to know all there is to know, but I suspect that we will run out of people to learn it before we do learn it. We aren't even a very old species as these things go, I don't think humanity will be around long enough to prove or disprove god.

though if there truly is a supernatural being that exists outside of space and time, I think your idea pretty much goes out the window. Since that is the concept of "God" many religions ultimately adhere too, I don't think it's ever going to be knowable that a God of that sort exists, unless he/she/it chooses to reveal himself/herself/itself to us in some testable way. Even if that particular kind of God is just a explanation for the unknown, the concept is still not a testable one.

Well if we are talking about things outside of time and space, why stop with God? Why not an entire race of beings that are outside of space-time? Why not whole universes, with other universes in outside of whatever analogies they have for spacetime? None of these are testable, yet nobody believes them (Except maybe string theorists? :P) because there is no reason for that belief. The burden of proof is on the theist to prove god's existence. If I were to propose any of the above, you would say "bring me proof". And if my reponse was "you can't disprove it!" then you would dismiss it as absurd. Same thing with this proposition of an unknowable god.

You can always take the analogy one level of absurdity further. Where do you draw the line? If you agree that one level is possible, you acknowledge all the others. Your argument is basically that anything at all is possible. Fine, I suppose it is, but I wouldn't base my life or actions or spirituality on that fact, and since anything at all is possible, you might as well ignore it and stick with what you know to be true.

[Ungatt Trunn II]

Something tells me this should be moved to UltraModerated Discussion.

[Gen. Volkov]

I think that it is possible to know all there is to know, but I suspect that we will run out of people to learn it before we do learn it. We aren't even a very old species as these things go, I don't think humanity will be around long enough to prove or disprove god.

Also possible, but I think the universe is far larger and stranger than we can ever wrap our minds around, and I highly doubt we will ever know all there is to know, even if humanity survives several billion more years.

Well if we are talking about things outside of time and space, why stop with God? Why not an entire race of beings that are outside of space-time? Why not whole universes, with other universes in outside of whatever analogies they have for spacetime? None of these are testable, yet nobody believes them (Except maybe string theorists? Tongue) because there is no reason for that belief.

Actually alternate or parallel universes are being seriously considered as a possibility at this time, and ways are being devised to test for them. I suppose that it is possible there is a whole race of beings who live outside our universe, and I'm sure some people do indeed believe that is the case, whether it be testable or not. I do not think you are really allowing for the vastness of human strangeness in the world when you make statements like this Shadow. Just because something is not testable does not mean that no one believes it.

The burden of proof is on the theist to prove god's existence. If I were to propose any of the above, you would say "bring me proof". And if my reponse was "you can't disprove it!" then you would dismiss it as absurd. Same thing with this proposition of an unknowable god.

No, I would say that it's not testable, and therefore out of the purview of science, but I would not dismiss someones beliefs as being absurd simply because I cannot test them. Though I think you are correct that burden of proof would be on the theists, except they aren't interested in providing proof, for the most part, so it falls to the scientists to try and disprove it, and we come to an impasse, and unknowable, and to agnostics like me, it will never be a knowable. It's an inherently unanswerable question.

You can always take the analogy one level of absurdity further. Where do you draw the line? If you agree that one level is possible, you acknowledge all the others. Your argument is basically that anything at all is possible. Fine, I suppose it is, but I wouldn't base my life or actions or spirituality on that fact, and since anything at all is possible, you might as well ignore it and stick with what you know to be true.

What do you know to be true Shadow? Nothing. Your whole concept of the universe is based on the faith that the world you perceive actually exists outside of you. The difference between you and I is that I accept this fact. Beyond that, I accept the possibility of many things, and then judge the probability of them being correct or not. In regards to these big questions about God and such though, I acknowledge my own ignorance. It's simply not possible to calculate the odds of Gods existence, nor is it possible to test for him. I just take it one step further and say that it never will be possible to do either of those things. As for what I base my life on, in practical terms I am basically an athiest, these high philosphical thoughts all boil down to me not going to church and generally not being religious. It's really only when I get into a discussion like this that my beliefs really intrude on my normal life.

[Briar]

I keeping hearing the word "Christian God" being thrown around.  What exactly is the "Christian God"?

[Ungatt Trunn II]

God is the Christian God I guess.