is the existence of god real? [Archive]

eleanor

11-11-2003, 05:34 PM

> If god exists, why did he let his son die for our sins? Why did he not just correct the people who had sins? - As a demonstration of His love. Also, correcting people's sins would mean removing free will.
> If god is all powerful why does he allow the devil to spawn evil? - I think it's cos of free will again. I'm not too sure if I believe in the devil as an entity - I think he is a metaphor for all the evil in the world that people have chosen to create.
> If Adam and Eve were the first beings on Earth, what the fudge are dinosaurs? - Their first children. No-one likes to talk about this.
> Why is god technically a rapist and a paedophile? - He's not. If He's omnipotent, it's not a huge trick to make a virgin pregnant. He also adapts to suit society - at the time of Jesus' birth, many 13-yr-olds married and had children. also, trying the whole "immaculate conception" and Jesus thing now would result in much cynicism, as people have changed...
> If god created man in his image, why does everone look different? - Not particularly different. Head, torso, two arms, two legs.
> Evolution - Yes, Christianity supports this (the creation of the Earth in seven days being a metaphor we can more readily understand than trying to compute the sheer numbers involved in billions of years of evolution - but in the creation theory, everything happens in the right order according to science). The cult of Creationism doesn't and thinks that the seven days thing actually happened.
> If sodomy is a sin, why does he create gays and bisexuals? - I don't think it is a sin. I think some homophobic beardos wrote that in. They also wrote that stoning adulterous women & gays was right. This is an example of why the Bible must be read carefully to separate the message from its confusion with a few individuals' opinions. Also, after thousands of translations...
> Why did he create marajuana? - Because it's good! it was only made illegal because the slaves were smoking it in the plantations instead of working.
> If god only created man and woman, where do ladyboys come from? - the joys of crossdressing :)

SemiCircle

11-11-2003, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by pie chicken
christianity and other religions cause war, if no one had religion ther would be less war RELIGION IS SILLY (mostly)(no offense)

people would just fight over something else. like skin colour or height or taste in clothes or who owns the rooster's egg, on top of the more traditional reasons of land and money and people and grudges.

as flanders and swann said in "the reluctant cannibal",
"you say people shouldn't eat people? pah, you might as well say that people shouldn't [i]fight[i] people!"
"ridiculous!"

except i can't remember the precise phrasing. ah well.

Pie Diddy

11-11-2003, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by eleanor

> Why did he create marajuana? - Because it's good! it was only made illegal because the slaves were smoking it in the plantations instead of working.
> If god only created man and woman, where do ladyboys come from? the joys of crossdressing :)

I'm not saying marajuans is bad, I used to be a complete stoner, I was just wondering why it is viewed as 'evil'
And by ladyboys I didn't mean crossdressers,

squealpiggy

11-11-2003, 08:02 PM

Ah you mean hermaphodites. Why not? If the chances of one of God's creatures producing a hermaphrodite are a trillion trillion trillion to one, in the context of infinity it is infinity to one against such an anomoly occurring, which means that it is destined to happen if God is infinite.

God creating man in His image... hmmm. I think Yoda put it best:

"More than this crude matter are we"

You are of God's image but He's referring to your soul, not your body.

And yes if God can create Man from a lump of clay and woman from said man's rib then creating a baby from a woman is no work at all!

often Ndisguise

11-11-2003, 08:33 PM

Originally posted by statueofliberty
I believe that religion is just your plain old fear of death. If it isnt the explain how sooo muny cultures around the world have their own "faith" and that they believe their faith to be the one true faith and that all other religions are wrong. Its just one huge big fear of poopin ur clogs n its pathetic. Get on with life, dont plan for your death now. Plan it after! ;)

religion and belief in god is not just about fearing death. It is about trying to explain why on earth there is a universe and why on earth people live on this little rock called earth.

I believe in God, because in order for something to be created (a painting, a sculpture etc etc) someone has to create it. I dont see how matter and living things were created without the guiding hand of some being.

The real question, in my opinion anyway, is who is this being referred to as God. Why has he put us here? What is the meaning of all this seemingly nonsensical crazeeness?

I have a feeling that no human on earth is intelligent enough to comprehend the truth about why we are here and who god might be. Just as an amoeba cannot possibly comprehend a world outside its own.

squealpiggy

11-11-2003, 09:12 PM

Well God is a mate of mine. Believing in God would be like believing in the postman.

The question isn't "who" rather the question is "what". What is God, is it a being, is it a metaphor, is it a creator or created? I think it is al of these things.

God is created by people as a creator. So he is the Creator, because WE made him the Creator.

That way everyone is right.

Hinges

11-11-2003, 11:43 PM

Originally posted by squealpiggy

God is created by people as a creator. So he is the Creator, because WE made him the Creator.

so we created him? so we're the creators? making him creating us a little impossible?

squealpiggy

11-11-2003, 11:58 PM

No, nothing is impossible. We also created God to be omnipotent, so there is nothing that is impossible to God.

Hinges

11-11-2003, 11:59 PM

if we created him... what about other religions? their gods are omnipotent too?

Hinges

12-11-2003, 12:02 AM

and if god cannot be wrong... and he says that other religions are false... and they aren't because the people who believed in them made them true merely by believing... how does that work? god is wrong?

3v1l |\/|1NiOn

12-11-2003, 06:19 AM

I definitely do not believe in the existance of god

but I do believe in aliens, if the universe is all for us, why is it so big, it would take us several billion years to get to the furthest known objects.

if the universe is that big, the probability of their being other beings is too great

squealpiggy

12-11-2003, 06:46 AM

Originally posted by Hinges
if we created him... what about other religions? their gods are omnipotent too?

With other religions it depends on the God. Sme of them are omnipotent, some of them are not, it depends on how their believers created them. It's all in the heads of the believers just the same as everyone's beliefs. Think about it, the evidence of your eyes is just your window on the world, what is in your head is real to you, so God is real as long as people believe it.

SemiCircle

12-11-2003, 10:01 AM

Originally posted by 3v1l |\/|1NiOn
I definitely do not believe in the existance of god

but I do believe in aliens, if the universe is all for us, why is it so big, it would take us several billion years to get to the furthest known objects.

if the universe is that big, the probability of their being other beings is too great

actully, some scientist dude worked out the probability of any star having planets around it, and the probability of one of those planets being capable of sustaining life, and the probability of life actually developing on it, and the probability of the life evolving to sentience (using lots and lots of approximations, as anyone who knows chaos theory will assume). well, what he found out was that, huge though the universe is, there's still probably only one planet out there with intelligent life on it, and we live on it.

squealpiggy

12-11-2003, 10:16 AM

Originally posted by SemiCircle
actully, some scientist dude worked out the probability of any star having planets around it, and the probability of one of those planets being capable of sustaining life, and the probability of life actually developing on it, and the probability of the life evolving to sentience (using lots and lots of approximations, as anyone who knows chaos theory will assume). well, what he found out was that, huge though the universe is, there's still probably only one planet out there with intelligent life on it, and we live on it.

There's intelligent life on this planet!?

Despite the long equations it is still just conjecture. I think that it is close to certain that there re other intelligences. I think that matter has a tendency to life, so it seems likely that there would be other lifeforms and as intelligence is a trait which aids proliferation there is a strong chance that there is intelligent life out there.

pie chicken

12-11-2003, 12:47 PM

There is a small amount aliens exist, arent foreigners called aliens sometimes (not in an offensive way) the government do have secret files on them because i have read hackers files

Pie Diddy

12-11-2003, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by often Ndisguise
I believe in God, because in order for something to be created (a painting, a sculpture etc etc) someone has to create it. I dont see how matter and living things were created without the guiding hand of some being.
Then what created god you fudging idiot! I do not believe in Aliens. We did create god, he is a fictional character who was created by some guy who thought of writing a fictional book called the Bible.
I think Red Dwarf put it best
'An additional page of the bible has been found, it is believed to have been originally placed at the start of the bible and it reads:
To my darling Jane, all characters in this book are fictional and any similarities to actual events or people are purely coincidental'

squealpiggy

12-11-2003, 12:51 PM

Yes the Illuminati break into your house and use all the toilet paper and the X Files is a documentary...

Don't believe everything you read. After all, it could be a government cover up...

SemiCircle

12-11-2003, 03:15 PM

i think the hackers hack into the government, and they find a bit that they can't break into, and they think, "ooh, they've really gone out of their way to protect this bit. i reckon there's some really juicy stuff in here." but they never get in, so they have to guess what was in there. hence aliens.

squealpiggy

12-11-2003, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by Pie Diddy
Then what created god you fudging idiot! I do not believe in Aliens. We did create god, he is a fictional character who was created by some guy who thought of writing a fictional book called the Bible.
I think Red Dwarf put it best
'An additional page of the bible has been found, it is believed to have been originally placed at the start of the bible and it reads:
To my darling Jane, all characters in this book are fictional and any similarities to actual events or people are purely coincidental'

We created God. We created a God that created us. Simple.

Think of a snake with it's arse in it's gob....

Hinges

12-11-2003, 05:47 PM

so we both created eachother...?
who came first?

if it was him... he is the creator...
if it was us... we are the creators...

which?

you can't say both, because that is impossible.

(and snakes aren't born with their arses in their gobs.)

Hinges

12-11-2003, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by squealpiggy
Think about it, the evidence of your eyes is just your window on the world, what is in your head is real to you, so God is real as long as people believe it.

how about crazy people?

pie chicken

12-11-2003, 07:00 PM

GOD 'S A POAEDAFILE:mad: :evil: :twisted:

Hinges

12-11-2003, 07:03 PM

paedophile?

pie chicken

12-11-2003, 07:08 PM

god is a paedophile because the virgin mary was 13 when she was impregnated with jesus"son of god" if its true god must have laid her
:bb:

Smeagle

12-11-2003, 07:16 PM

Originally posted by eleanor
> Why is god technically a rapist and a paedophile? - He's not. If He's omnipotent, it's not a huge trick to make a virgin pregnant. He also adapts to suit society - at the time of Jesus' birth, many 13-yr-olds married and had children. also, trying the whole "immaculate conception" and Jesus thing now would result in much cynicism, as people have changed...

Pie Chicken, read the thread before you post. That question has already been answered ;)

Scribbly

17-11-2003, 11:07 AM

Why do you not believe in God? Do you believe in life after death? How about ghosts? Aliens?

- I'm an atheist as well (I guess..) and yes; I don't believe there is a God. Somebody just made up a 'lil story and a lot of people took it a little to serious.

This is, of course, a very silly theory but we'll never know what really happend.

- When you die, it'll be like dreaming > the part where you're just thinking of nothing. Blank. Dark. You won't realise this, so when you die you just cease to excist. It'd be fun if would just start a new life, on Earth, and be aware of your previous life. But this is again a very silly thought

- Ghosts are fictional.

- 'Aliens' could be tiny little worms hundreds of millions of billions of ... (you get it).. miles away from here. There's a universe so big out there, that our minds can't deal with the size of it. You really think that there isn't even ONE planet with SOME form of life on it? " 'Somewhere', there is an other form life" > this is a fact to me.

I've got to go now..class...

squealpiggy

17-11-2003, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by Hinges
so we both created eachother...?
who came first?

if it was him... he is the creator...
if it was us... we are the creators...

which?

you can't say both, because that is impossible.

(and snakes aren't born with their arses in their gobs.)

Once we created God he was our creator and always had been.

Scribbly the processes involved in a primitive society creating God are long winded and complicated, going through nature spirits, totems, deities before finally coming about the idea of an all powerful creator. It wouldn't be accurate to say that God is a story that people tok seriously, because there is such a long story to God being produced that the idea of God evolved from much simpler beginnings. And because of the nature of belief and perception once people believe in whatever they believe in, then it has been the way that it is for as long as the believers believe it was.

If that makes sense.

Mister Ben

17-11-2003, 11:56 AM

I wouldn't call myself an atheist as a religious position, as I don't have faith in the non-existance of God, I just don't believe there is a God, or if there is, absolutely everyone has got it wrong in some way or another.

I think aliens probably do exist, but they could be so different from us that we do not recognize them as life - that is, of course, the main difficulty.

Ghosts, in my opinion, are complete fabrications, I say this because I think there is a great desire in most people to believe that sort of thing, and there are a few co-oincidences which could easily make you think, as you have wanted to think for years, that not all is natural and sensible.

No-one knows or could ever really know what happens when you die. It is entirely possible that you remain perfectly concious, able to see as long as your eyes are open, but completely unable to tell anyone about this. This could make burning of the dead very dangerous indeed...

squealpiggy

17-11-2003, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by Hinges
how about crazy people?

Have you ever met a person that was totally sane? Sounds like a scary proposition.

SemiCircle

17-11-2003, 03:45 PM

wasn't it some greek dude who said something along the lines of "if man was a dog, our gods would be dogs", with the idea that gods are what man makes them.
it's common to assume from this that this was the first atheistic thought, as he's implying that because the gods are whatever we make them, we make them up, and so they don't really exist. this isn't neccesarily the case: it could merely be that the gods do exist, and they can take whatever form they like, and they take the human form because that's the form we are familiar with. interestingly, the ancient greek gods weren't creator-type gods, and so it's possible that this greek dude could still believe in some divine creator-type god, whilst denying the existance of the common thunder-and-lighting-type gods.

but anyhow, the bible says "god created man in his own image". squealpiggy would say, "and so man created god in his own image", and would try to argue that both of these could be true, which, aesthetic though it is, is logically unsound (as well he knows). such things never stopped god before, though...

squealpiggy

17-11-2003, 04:05 PM

I don't need to argue that, it is quite clearly the case. If God didn't create us then how come we are here? And God is quite clearly a human invention. So logically it has to be illogical.

It makes sense if you accept that there is no reality, only perception.

cadex

17-11-2003, 04:32 PM

I think people should worship people.

whenever I find myself in a bad situation, its never a devine spirit helping me out, theres always some man or woman who steps up to me with their arms outstretched.

as for god existing at all, well, I'll have to say no.
it just doesnt make sense to me.
The idea of a perfect being seems absurd.
Evolution makes alot more sense, and there is actualy proof to back it up.

But if people want to believe in a god, then it should be a god that lives within them. their own perception of a perfect being.

The Angry Elvis

17-11-2003, 08:49 PM

I think we have just got the idea of a god entriely wrong. When we think of God, we think of an extension of man, that is a to say we believe in God as a big super man in the sky. That would mean we are just slaves to a tyrannical and despotical ruler, and why should we worship a bigger version of us. It would be like worshipping a government leader. We personify God way too much. How can God have any humanly tangible nature to Him, giving Him a gender purely for ease of explanation, if he is so infinite and immense. He is outside of our understanding, outside of time and space, so we cannot bring ourselves to try and contain him within a text or doctrine successfully. Who is to say that those who follow the word of Christ are in any way more "holy" than the Aboriginis in Australia and New Zealand, correct me if I'm wrong on my Geography, just by the confines of text. The only thing we can be sure on is how to live well and love everyone.

Norbington

17-11-2003, 08:56 PM

God isn't some almighty being watching over us and controlling our lives, he's not even a being as you or I would understand it. He's not something material like you or I, he's a belief, an idea. Belief in God is enough to prove his existance, if you believe in him then he exists, if you don't then he doesn't.

At least, that's what I think.

squealpiggy

17-11-2003, 09:14 PM

Who is to say that those who follow the word of Christ are in any way more "holy" than the Aboriginis in Australia and New Zealand

Christians?

Playbus

18-11-2003, 03:16 PM

A large scientific organization in America (where else) decided
to pose the ultimate question to it's hi-tech computer.

"Is there a God?", they asked of it.

After feeding in all relevant information available they
waited. After a lot of hard disk searching
and the checking of all drives the computer went into an
eerie silence for a few hours and then started typing on the screen.

It's answer was "Insufficient data".

Not to be outdone the scientists in their infinite wisdom
started gathering information on God from the Worlds
libraries, archives, and archaelogy institutions. So much
information was assembled that it was decided that one
computer could not handle it all so all large computers
in the States were linked together for the operation.
Again the question was posed and all the computers went into
action. After three days the answer was forthcomming.

"Not enough resources to compute answer".

This time they were going to get an answer to an age old
problem and nothing would stop them. After months of
negotiations with governments around the world they were
able to link all the computers in the world together to
produce the ultimate computer. Nothing would stop them
now. Just to make sure they fed in all information even
remotely connected to God.

The information entered and all computers linked a
scientist typed in the question "Is there a God?".
The computer whirred into action checking all it's
drives and then linking with all the other computers.
After months of activity going from one computer to another
the computer started typing the answer and everybody waited
eagerly as it typed to the screen.

"There is now"

Mozz

08-12-2003, 01:48 AM

I myself am an athiest, and heres a little joke for you.

Christian Logic:
Kiss Hank's Ass

This morning there was a knock at my door. When I answered the door I found a well groomed, nicely dressed couple. The man spoke first:

"Hi! I'm John, and this is Mary."
Mary: "Hi! We're here to invite you to come kiss Hank's ass with us."
Me: "Pardon me?! What are you talking about? Who's Hank, and why would I want to kiss his ass?"
John: "If you kiss Hank's ass, he'll give you a million dollars; and if you don't, he'll kick the shit out of you."
Me: "What? Is this some sort of bizarre mob shake-down?"
John: "Hank is a billionaire philanthropist. Hank built this town. Hank owns this town. He can do what ever he wants, and what he wants is to give you a million dollars, but he can't until you kiss his ass."
Me: "That doesn't make any sense. Why..."
Mary: "Who are you to question Hank's gift? Don't you want a million dollars? Isn't it worth a little kiss on the ass?"
Me: "Well maybe, if it's legit, but..."
John: "Then come kiss Hank's ass with us."
Me: "Do you kiss Hank's ass often?"
Mary: "Oh yes, all the time..."
Me: "And has he given you a million dollars?"
John: "Well no, you don't actually get the money until you leave town."
Me: "So why don't you just leave town now?"
Mary: "You can't leave until Hank tells you to, or you don't get the money, and he kicks the shit out of you."
Me: "Do you know anyone who kissed Hank's ass, left town, and got the million dollars?"
John: "My mother kissed Hank's ass for years. She left town last year, and I'm sure she got the money."
Me: "Haven't you talked to her since then?"
John: "Of course not, Hank doesn't allow it."
Me: "So what makes you think he'll actually give you the money if you've never talked to anyone who got the money?"
Mary: "Well, he gives you a little bit before you leave. Maybe you'll get a raise, maybe you'll win a small lotto, maybe you'll just find a twenty dollar bill on the street."
Me: "What's that got to do with Hank?
John: "Hank has certain 'connections.'"
Me: "I'm sorry, but this sounds like some sort of bizarre con game."
John: "But it's a million dollars, can you really take the chance? And remember, if you don't kiss Hank's ass he'll kick the shit of you."
Me: "Maybe if I could see Hank, talk to him, get the details straight from him..."
Mary: "No one sees Hank, no one talks to Hank."
Me: "Then how do you kiss his ass?"
John: "Sometimes we just blow him a kiss, and think of his ass. Other times we kiss Karl's ass, and he passes it on."
Me: "Who's Karl?"
Mary: "A friend of ours. He's the one who taught us all about kissing Hank's ass. All we had to do was take him out to dinner a few times."
Me: "And you just took his word for it when he said there was a Hank, that Hank wanted you to kiss his ass, and that Hank would reward you?"
John: "Oh no! Karl's got a letter Hank sent him years ago explaining the whole thing. Here's a copy; see for yourself."

John handed me a photocopy of a handwritten memo on From the desk of Karl letterhead. There were eleven items listed:

1. Kiss Hank's ass and he'll give you a million dollars when you leave town.
2. Use alcohol in moderation.
3. Kick the shit out of people who aren't like you.
4. Eat right.
5. Hank dictated this list himself.
6. The moon is made of green cheese.
7. Everything Hank says is right.
8. Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.
9. Don't drink.
10. Eat your wieners on buns, no condiments.
11. Kiss Hank's ass or he'll kick the shit out of you.

Me: "This would appear to be written on Karl's letterhead."
Mary: "Hank didn't have any paper."
Me: "I have a hunch that if we checked we'd find this is Karl's handwriting."
John: "Of course, Hank dictated it."
Me: "I thought you said no one gets to see Hank?"
Mary: "Not now, but years ago he would talk to some people."
Me: "I thought you said he was a philanthropist. What sort of philanthropist kicks the shit out of people just because they're different?"
Mary: "It's what Hank wants, and Hank's always right."
Me: "How do you figure that?"
Mary: "Item 7 says 'Everything Hanks says is right.' That's good enough for me!"
Me: "Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up."
John: "No way! Item 5 says 'Hank dictated this list himself.' Besides, item 2 says 'Use alcohol in moderation,' Item 4 says 'Eat right,' and item 8 says 'Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.' Everyone knows those things are right, so the rest must be true, too."
Me: "But 9 says 'Don't Drink,' which doesn't quite go with item 2, and 6 says 'The moon is made of green cheese,' which is just plain wrong."
John: "There's no contradiction between 9 and 2, 9 just clarifies 2. As far as 6 goes, you've never been to the moon, so you can't say for sure."
Me: "Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made of rock..."
Mary: "But they don't know if the rock came from the Earth, or from out of space, so it could just as easily be green cheese."
Me: "I'm not really an expert, but I think the theory that the Moon came from the Earth has been discounted. Besides, not knowing where the rock came from doesn't make it cheese."
John: "Aha! You just admitted that scientists make mistakes, but we know Hank is always right!"
Me: "We do?"
Mary: "Of course we do, Item 5 says so."
Me: "You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no different than saying 'Hank's right because he says he's right.'"
John: "Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come around to Hank's way of thinking."
Me: "But...oh, never mind. What's the deal with wieners?"

Mary blushes. John says: "Wieners, in buns, no condiments. It's Hank's way. Anything else is wrong."
Me: "What if I don't have a bun?"
John: "No bun, no wiener. A wiener without a bun is wrong."
Me: "No relish? No Mustard?"

Mary looks positively stricken. John shouts: "There's no need for such language! Condiments of any kind are wrong!"
Me: "So a big pile of sauerkraut with some wieners chopped up in it would be out of the question?"

Mary sticks her fingers in her ears: "I am not listening to this. La la la, la la, la la la."
John: "That's disgusting. Only some sort of evil deviant would eat that..."
Me: "It's good! I eat it all the time."

Mary faints. John catches her: "Well, if I'd known you where one of those I wouldn't have wasted my time. When Hank kicks the shit out of you I'll be there, counting my money and laughing. I'll kiss Hank's ass for you, you bunless cut-wienered kraut-eater."

psychohamster

08-12-2003, 02:30 AM

I don't know.
Not one of you people know, that's what it all comes down to. There is no physical evidence proving or disproving the existence of God. On one hand we are an assembly of organic molecules evolved from the creation of the Earth itself. On the other, we are living things that have souls and morals. My opinion? We are both.

12th-Pie

08-12-2003, 03:52 AM

Faith is not religion. Religion is the biased, one-sided view that only one thing is true, only one god, only this god, only no god. Faith is the complete and utter commitment to a belief. You can have faith that there is one god, you can have faith that there is no god, you can have faith that there are many gods. That does not make the others false, or yours true, it makes that what you believe.

I, myself, believe that there are many gods, that one of them is the Hebrew god. I believe he may have inspired the Bible, and that there was a prophet, Jesus, who may have been his son. I also believe that there were other gods. This theory is supported by the bible, if you believe in it.

Genesis 1:26
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Now, trinitarians believe that "our" is in reference to Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Not once does it mention that the Holy Spirit is an actual being, and Jesus has not been created yet. I am not saying that it isn't in reference to them, or that trinitarians are wrong, I am saying that I believe the "our" is in reference to other gods. This is also backed up in the Ten Commandments.

Exodus 20:3
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Now, again, some may argue that he means false gods, but I believe he means that there are other gods, but to be in his favor, you should not put them before him, because he is a "Jealous God."

Exodus 20:5
for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God

But, what I am trying to say is that, even though I believe in gods and the Bible, I am not a christian. This is because I do not think you should commit yourself to a book written by someone who is: Jealous, hypocritical, pompous, racist, sexist, megalomaniacal, egomaniacal, and sinful.

Now, for all those atheists out there, Congratulations! You believe that there is no god!

Atheists can prove almost any point with facts. What about christians? Most christians cannot prove their points unless they use a quote from the bible. Hmmm.... let's see.... WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO PROVE A POINT TO SOMEONE WHO DOESN'T BELIEVE IN THE BIBLE WITH THE BIBLE!

You could prove it some other way... I'm sure you can find a way if you tried, but, unless you have some valid facts to prove your claim, other than quotes from a flawed book that may or may not be fictitious, please do not try to prove your point. It's obviously not worth hearing unless you can use real facts.

Just so we're clear, my bible points were just proving a christian thing to other christians, if you do not believe in the Bible, disregard those Bible quotes, because the Bible may not really be inspired by a god.

psychohamster

08-12-2003, 03:58 AM

It's all what we believe, not what we know. We won't know until we die. But i am getting kind of sick with all this thought nowdays that science is disproving God. All science is doing is using logic to explain the world around us. Who is to say there is a God and who is to say there is'nt, science? no.

12th-Pie

08-12-2003, 04:07 AM

I agree with psycho hamster, there is no way to disprove God or gods. There is also no way to prove it. If we were to die, there is no way to come back and prove to everyone it was true, and if we die and there is nothing, there is no way to come back and prove to everyone it was false. If "God speaks to you" no one will believe you, because there is no way to prove he spoke to you.

Science cannot even prove there is no gods, because what if God(s) created science? What if (s)he made the "Big-Bang" happen? Then, just because it didn't happen does not "disprove" God. So, this is one debate that can never end, because there is no definitive answer.

Like saying: Is war bad?

Or: Is fate real?

Or: Why are we here?

kensa!

08-12-2003, 05:04 AM

I'm not sure if I'm committing a major faux pas diving straight into threads on my first day here, please tell me if i am :x

An RE teacher once said this to a bored, restless class at my secondary school. While everyone else was busy planning what they were going to do that weekend, for some reason (god knows why, ah-ha ah-ha....never mind :/ ) it actually struck a chord with me:

"If you're walking along a shingle beach, staring at the ground, you'll see many plain, inanimate stones and rocks, naturally formed by erosion and thrown up onto the beach by a combination of chance and the random action of the sea. But if you come across a pocket watch, intricately designed, beautifully made and perfectly formed, you don't assume that it was formed by nature in the same way that the rocks were. It's completely unfeasible that something that intricate could be created purely by chance and coincidence, so you assume - with reason - that somebody has MADE that watch with the INTENT to make it. Now...that's just a pocket watch. Take a look at the world, and at every living thing; plant, animal, human - and how it all works together, in perfect equilibrium (or at least _should_ do, mankind's self-destructive nature aside ^^;). How much more intricate than a pocket watch is the world? The universe? Why would you assume that the pocket watch was made with intent, while the universe and everything in it was formed completely by chance?"

...Reading that back to myself, I've articulated it with far less skill than the teacher did (which is worrying, since I've just started an English Literature degree ^^;). Hopefully the sentiment is clear enough, though? While personally I don't agree with most organised religions' beliefs and laws I do believe that there is absolutely no way that existence was formed out of the chance combination of certain atoms. I don't know who or what created us, but I'm sure there was a _reason_.

Thundy

08-12-2003, 05:25 AM

Hmm..

Well as I we were saying I subscribe to the belief where if life can evolve it will evolve.

All matter and energy seeks a more stable. The most stable state, if possible. When the first amino acids combined to form the first protein, they did so as it was more beneficial...easier..for them to do so.

And 3 billion years or so after that here we are.

I don't believe in God for many reasons, but the most relevant is that I see nothing around me that cannot just have...happened...by the natural laws of the universe. I see no evidence a deity had to take a hand to help this thing we call life to happen.

It _could_ have just happened. So why do we need God?

squealpiggy

08-12-2003, 07:05 AM

Atheists can prove almost any point with facts.

Nah, you cannot "prove" anything and there are no such things as "facts". God could exist outside our realms of perception, for example outside time.

Thundy

08-12-2003, 09:11 AM

Originally posted by squealpiggy
Nah, you cannot "prove" anything and there are no such things as "facts". God could exist outside our realms of perception, for example outside time.

I just don't agree. Simply because there is no need for a "God" to intervene in anything we see. Not even the creation of life.

PoofBird

08-12-2003, 09:15 AM

you cannot prove or disprove anything...

though you may argue we don't need a God, doesn't mean there isn't one.

to many people the idea of something being formed by nothing is as unlikely as any God-theory. Or the idea of the Universe being endless and eternal, that has always been here.
That is as hard to grasp as the idea of a Creator.

An atheist doens't prove anything... he merely denies God's existence.
I'd call myself an agnost. I admit not to know if god exists or not.

Thundy

08-12-2003, 09:23 AM

Originally posted by PoofBird
you cannot prove or disprove anything...

though you may argue we don't need a God, doesn't mean there isn't one.

to many people the idea of something being formed by nothing is as unlikely as any God-theory. Or the idea of the Universe being endless and eternal, that has always been here.
That is as hard to grasp as the idea of a Creator.

An atheist doens't prove anything... he merely denies God's existence.
I'd call myself an agnost. I admit not to know if god exists or not.

Call it what you will, I think faith in a all powerful deity and , ergo, an afterlfe is the crutch of a feeble mind afraid of the ultimate end.

That's where God comes from. Reglgious faith.

If you think bout it, if religion had never come about and then someone today said "Hey what if there's some powerful super-being who's watching over us and wants us to live a good life? And he actually made the universe?"

That poor sod would've been locked up so fast you'd never known what happened.

Mexican Pie

08-12-2003, 10:24 AM

1 question- by the Bible, God existed before the Universe, before time itself: he was not born, for he has existed for all time and all the time before time and after time.

How is this possible?

PoofBird

08-12-2003, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by Mexican Pie
1 question- by the Bible, God existed before the Universe, before time itself: he was not born, for he has existed for all time and all the time before time and after time.

How is this possible?

no one knows.

then again... how is it possible the universe just *happened* out of nothing?

or how is it possible the universe always existed, and never began?

squealpiggy

08-12-2003, 11:52 AM

Call it what you will, I think faith in a all powerful deity and , ergo, an afterlfe is the crutch of a feeble mind afraid of the ultimate end.

Why do sel proclaimed atheists always come out with the egregious assertion that believing in God makes you somehow weak?

And God existed before the universe and will exist after it will end because God is infinite, and the universe is not. Infinity explains a lot of things.

SemiCircle

08-12-2003, 03:01 PM

and it simultaneously explains nothing, because we don't understand it. saying "god is infinite" is just the same as saying "i don't properly understand the concept of god"
doesn't mean god isn't infinite, of course. why should we puny mortals be able to understand him?

atheists proclaim that believing in god is weak because they have just made a leap of faith in denying his existance, and faith is empowering. to a certain extent, they are right, too. people who just believe in god becuase they are told to ARE weak. people who believe in him because they have given it some thought, however, have taken a similar leap of faith to the atheists, but merely in the other direction.

(damn, typing is hard with cold fingers.)

squealpiggy

08-12-2003, 04:07 PM

In God we are talking about a supreme being. Considering how far humans are from being supreme I think it is reasonable to assume that we would understand nothing about God. We understand God to the same degree that cockroaches understand us.

leeroy

08-12-2003, 05:03 PM

Originally posted by squealpiggy
In God we are talking about a supreme being. Considering how far humans are from being supreme I think it is reasonable to assume that we would understand nothing about God. We understand God to the same degree that cockroaches understand us.

big iritating monsters

i think youve taken the pratchett view of religion, its real if people believe in it. simple yet effective, ok fair enough this is a debating forum but other than that why question the existence of god (or any other form of deity) people should believe in what they believe. what i dont like is when someone tries to force a religion upon you, i really hate that.

Thundy

09-12-2003, 08:47 AM

It just doesn't make any sense to me. I don't deny the existence of God outright, so I aren't a typical atheist....

I just deny the NEED for an existence of God. As we learn more and more about the nature of the universe, more and more things become less divine...less provident.

In fact you see this happening if you look : Less and less people in every generation are religious, in the Western world that is. This is mostly down to people knowing how the world and universe work. More than they did few hundred years ago anyway...

Also in other parts of the world where scientific knowledge is pretty rare, almost all people are religious still.

Personally I feel a day will come when God and religion are a thing of the part and will cease to be.

squealpiggy

09-12-2003, 09:05 AM

Until one day we realise how little we actually understand! Science, like religion, is a way of explaining things that we don't understand.

Thundy

09-12-2003, 09:41 AM

Originally posted by squealpiggy
Until one day we realise how little we actually understand! Science, like religion, is a way of explaining things that we don't understand.

lol?

You can't compare those two.
Religion just asks people to believe things in blind truth.
Whilst you might not understand how to use a nuclear accelator to manufacture anti-matter, if you so chose you could find out.

squealpiggy

09-12-2003, 10:05 AM

OK here's a question: what is the speed of light? You can answer any way you want, look it up on google if you need to.

SemiCircle

09-12-2003, 10:41 AM

did you know that they are now defining the metre in terms of the speed of light, because it's easier to measure how fast it's going than it is to see how far it went. or something.
so a metre is defined as the distance light travels in 3.33x10^-9 seconds.
and a second is determined by the decay constant of some caesium isotope. buggered if i know what that is off the top of my head, though. i think i'll google it...
oh. The second (s) is the duration of 9 192 631 770periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom.

bloody light again. (sort of.) nothing to do with radioactive dacay, though. i was wrong: damn.

oops, got a little side-tracked. yes, umm, god is a handy way of explaining things, and so is science, so they are similar.

Thundy

09-12-2003, 11:06 AM

Light speed (without looking at Google) is the speed light travels. Approx. 186,000 miles p/s

Science is NOT a convenient way of explaining things. It's how things really work. Religion and God are just things people use to explain things they don't understand!!!!

Science explains things so we can understand them!

PoofBird

09-12-2003, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by Thundy
Science is NOT a convenient way of explaining things. It's how things really work. Religion and God are just things people use to explain things they don't understand!!!!

Science explains things so we can understand them!

read some books on scientific philosophy.
Science is, at best, a collection of models used to describe and predict the unknown.
Newton's physics are far from true. But it's still science. And we still use his equations because they give apt descriptions and predictions in a lot of practical situations.
His theories have been replaced by newer models. These are the not how things really work. They are another though-created concept that allows us to predict something else in nature, in which Newton didn't suffice.

Stephen Hawking wrote that every scientific theory has a passing nature. It is only a hypotheses, that will be sufficient until we find a better on.

While we're on this, can you prove causality?
If so, have a nobel prize.
If not, how can science be the whole truth then?

squealpiggy

09-12-2003, 11:24 AM

Exactly!

The earth is round, we all know this. How? We have seen pictures and videos and it makes sense! We use the information we have and make assumptions about how things should work. Hence we know that the earth moves around the sun once every 365.25 days just as surely as the Ancient Egyptians knew that the sun sailed across he sky in a boat with Ra and Thoth. We know that septicaemia is caused by microbes just as medieval doctors knew that festering wounds were caused by unholy humours.

The first scientists were in fact priests.

Thundy

09-12-2003, 11:38 AM

OMG You lot defy any kind of reason.

weebl

09-12-2003, 12:03 PM

actually the last few post have been excellent thundy.

a lot of science is theoretical. i.e hypothetical, an abstract.

you look at how we've gone from newtons theory of relativity to einstiens theory of relativity to super string theory. our knowledge of how this function is changing all the time. when talking about a universe with 12 dimensions ( or however many they think it is at the moment) how little of that do you imagine is totally provable? Especially when we can only comprehend 4.

squealpiggy

09-12-2003, 12:08 PM

Originally posted by Thundy
OMG You lot defy any kind of reason.

Translation: You don't agree with me so you must be wrong.

Matthew Hopkins, the Witchfinder General worked along similar assumption.

PoofBird

09-12-2003, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by squealpiggy
Translation: You don't agree with me so you must be wrong.

Matthew Hopkins, the Witchfinder General worked along similar assumption.

as did the Spanish Inquisition... :)

let's have children, squealpiggy.

Thundy

09-12-2003, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by squealpiggy
Translation: You don't agree with me so you must be wrong.

Matthew Hopkins, the Witchfinder General worked along similar assumption.

No no no... I don't agree with you because you are wrong.

squealpiggy

09-12-2003, 01:05 PM

In your reality tunnel I am wrong but in my reality tunnel I am right. Who is more right? The one who is willing to take on new ideas. I am nd you are not!

Poofbird we cannot have babies as we are both boys. We could do big poos but it wouldn't be the same.:eek:

PoofBird

09-12-2003, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by squealpiggy
Poofbird we cannot have babies as we are both boys. We could do big poos but it wouldn't be the same.:eek:
Close enough, as long as we give them names.

squealpiggy

09-12-2003, 02:02 PM

And bring them up in the eyes of God, naturally...

TheRobster

09-12-2003, 03:55 PM

Pfft, another one of those discussions eh? Thanks Thundy for emailing me the URL – now that I know this is here I have to post something ‘cos I can’t resist this type of thread.

Anyway, this is how I see things. There are 3 competing theories here, and not one of them is yet proved or disproved and it may be beyond human ability to ever resolve which of these is true (if any). So, the current top 3 theories of ‘life, the Universe and everything’ are:

1) The Anthropic principle.

States that the Universe is the way it is because there is no other choice. The underlying laws of nature and physics dictate that the Universe had to come into existence and that it’s current form is the only one it could have taken. The evolution of life, and most notably sentient life (i.e. us!), was an inevitable consequence of the laws of nature. If it didn’t happen this way, then there no-one would be around to argue about it and say ‘why are things this way?’ and ‘why are we here?’ Once we understand how the Universe works, we will see that there is nothing special about it (or us) and that this is the way it is because there never was any other alternative.

2) Multiverse/string theory.

Multiverse and string theory (latest incarnation) both say pretty much the same thing – that the Universe we see is only one from an infinite number of parallel Universes existing outside our own sphere of reference (i.e. outside the 4 measurable dimensions of space and time). Each Universe has slightly different physical laws, so while it may seem a massive coincidence that our own Universe is so fine-tuned for life to emerge, this is not really the case. The vast majority of Universes will have physical laws that mean any form of life is not possible, because the key physical constants (i.e. gravity, rate of expansion of the Universe, nuclear strong and weak forces, etc…) have values that mean that the conditions for life do not arise. However, given that there are an infinite number of these Universes, then a small percentage of them will have conditions that are right for life. Ours is one of these such Universes, but because we cannot directly interact with the other Universes it appears to us as if this is the only one.

3) God did it.

Easiest explanation of all. God did it. Don’t know how or why, but he just went ‘KAZAM!’ and there was the Universe (and presumably us as well).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The most accepted theory at the moment (among physisists at least) is the latest incarnation of String Theory. There are currently a few advanced mathematical models which generate an infinite number of Universes starting at a given point in time. From these, most have laws of physics that would negate any form of life, but a few Universes do drop out of the equations which would allow some form of life to evolve. Most notable are the Universes that occur that have laws of physics very similar to ours, which at least shows that the models have a sound theoretical basis since they produce Universes similar to the one we already know about.

Of course, at the end of the day it comes down to what you believe, based on your own experiences, convictions and (to some extent) cultural upbringing. People very rarely change their mind about this sort of thing. Atheists remain atheists, Christians remain Christians, Muslims remain Muslims, and Jehovah’s Witnesses remain a pain in the arse, no matter what you tell them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

References: (Just some stuff I had lying around if anyone cares to read about this any further):

New Scientist. 1st November 2003. Issue number 2419. (Article on String Theory).

Focus. December 2003. Issue number 133. (Article on parallel universes).

Also look for articles on quantum computer theory, since one of the underlying principles is that they perform calculations outside the 4 dimensions we are familiar with (space and time) and so the fact they work lends some weight to the Multiverse/String Theory argument.

- Rob

squealpiggy

09-12-2003, 04:06 PM

Jehovah’s Witnesses remain a pain in the arse, no matter what you tell them.

I never have a problem with Jehovah's Witnesses, I'm honest with them and they're fine. I just say that I'm not interested, they can leave any brochures they want and I won't read hem.

TheRobster

09-12-2003, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by squealpiggy
I never have a problem with Jehovah's Witnesses, I'm honest with them and they're fine. I just say that I'm not interested, they can leave any brochures they want and I won't read hem.

Yeh but the ones that used to visit my house always tried to convince me God exists using the 'blind watch maker' story.

You try telling them that you can't really compare how a watch is made with the theory of evolution. Oh, and that the founder of their religion (Charles Russell) was actually a liar and a thief and was indited on charges of fraud.

Banging your head against a brick wall would be more productive. :rolleyes:

*edit* Actually, this is why I dislike the Jehovah's Witnesses's religion. Out of all the major world religions I think it's one of the most intolerent and petty-minding that there is. Never mind the fact that it's based on lies and falsehoods.

http://www.christiancommunitychurch.us/dovenet/jwwhat.htm

PoofBird

09-12-2003, 04:18 PM

it's very nice to discuss this stuff with Jehova's Witnesses.
As opposed to a lot of people, they know their facts.
They have to, because they challenge other people's believes everyday.
This makes them better discussion partners than most atheists.

besides that, Rob, nice little essay.

Good to have some background information for those who want to participate but need to look a few things up.

TheRobster

09-12-2003, 04:29 PM

Originally posted by PoofBird
it's very nice to discuss this stuff with Jehova's Witnesses.
As opposed to a lot of people, they know their facts.
They have to, because they challenge other people's believes everyday.
This makes them better discussion partners than most atheists.

Well maybe I was a little harsh on them, but my opinion is based on my discussions with the few that I've met. Okay I admit I shouldn't stereotype the whole religion based on meeting just a few of them, but I have issues with the fact that they seem very unwilling to see any other point of view apart from there own.

Basically, been told that me, my whole family and everyone I know that isn't a Jehovah's Witness is going to burn in hell for all eternity doesn't go down too well. :twisted:

PoofBird

09-12-2003, 04:33 PM

true, rob

you won't win a discusison with a Jehova's witness... they won't let you, even if you are (a bit more) right...

it's still good practice though, keeps you on your edge

TheRobster

09-12-2003, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by PoofBird
true, rob

you won't win a discusison with a Jehova's witness... they won't let you, even if you are (a bit more) right...

it's still good practice though, keeps you on your edge

Heh, true. It's even better when I tell them I'm a scientist. I think that makes me the Devil in their book. :twisted: :D

squealpiggy

09-12-2003, 05:44 PM

Never mind the fact that it's based on lies and falsehoods.

Most of a Jehovah's Witness's beliefs come from the bible, in particular the book of Revelations which has some very specific figures when it comes to how many people get to heaven. I used to date a girl who was a Jehovah's Witness, most of them that I have met have been quite nice. Not particularly tolerant of non-JWs but pretty much they don't have anything to so with them unless they're witnessing. And JWs do not harangue people and tell them that they will go to hell, unlike certain baptist branches of Christianity. They might believe that but they're entitled to that belief.

eidderf

09-12-2003, 06:35 PM

Originally posted by pie chicken
christianity and other religions cause war, if no one had religion ther would be less war RELIGION IS SILLY (mostly)(no offense)
Name me one religion that says if someone diagrees with you go to war ?????????

TheRobster

09-12-2003, 06:47 PM

Originally posted by eidderf
Name me one religion that says if someone diagrees with you go to war ?????????

George-Bushism. ;)

Mr Games

09-12-2003, 06:50 PM

Do we have the right to badmouth other religions?

PoofBird

09-12-2003, 06:51 PM

Originally posted by Mr Games
Do we have the right to badmouth other religions?

no

TheRobster

09-12-2003, 06:53 PM

Originally posted by Mr Games
Do we have the right to badmouth other religions?

No, you're right. It's a pointless excercise and everyone is entitled to their opinion, whether I agree with it or not. ;)

So.......back on topic then? :)

squealpiggy

09-12-2003, 07:14 PM

Name me one religion that says if someone diagrees with you go to war ?????????

Christianity?

The Old Testament is full of stuff like that.

Destrukto

09-12-2003, 07:19 PM

Originally posted by squealpiggy
Christianity?

The Old Testament is full of stuff like that.

If you count disagreeing who's land it is as a disagreement...

There is no clause telling them to go to war if they don't believe in JHVH.

Only that it's allright to kick them generally and not to mingle with the filthy other ones ;)

squealpiggy

09-12-2003, 07:38 PM

There's a whole section about going to war against the Gentiles! Though I agree that claiming that their land belongs to you cos god gave it you and them claiming it doesn't because they live there does go a tad beyond an ideological disagreement...

Tommuz

09-12-2003, 07:45 PM

In the old testament the tribes of Israel hadn't settled down so were still nomadic. Being nomads, the tribes often came into conflict with each other and there were some huge battles, for example in Joshua 3:7ff. where YHWH proclaims that Joshua will expel the other tribes. This nomadic existence is the reason for the warlike God that appears in the old testament. Of course there are other things that come in to this depending on whether you are Catholic, Protestant or Jew and i could go into the different beliefs of the Catholics, Protestants and Jewish God and the pro's and con's of these views of God, but i wont as it will take me a long time and i aint writing no more essays this year. :p

squealpiggy

09-12-2003, 08:23 PM

Originally posted by Tommuz
In the old testament the tribes of Israel hadn't settled down so were still nomadic. Being nomads, the tribes often came into conflict with each other and there were some huge battles, for example in Joshua 3:7ff. where YHWH proclaims that Joshua will expel the other tribes. This nomadic existence is the reason for the warlike God that appears in the old testament. Of course there are other things that come in to this depending on whether you are Catholic, Protestant or Jew and i could go into the different beliefs of the Catholics, Protestants and Jewish God and the pro's and con's of these views of God, but i wont as it will take me a long time and i aint writing no more essays this year. :p

But the very last paragraph of Revelations contradicts that. It says that the bible (old and new testament) is the be all and end all and it's all right! So you are not allowed to do any of that pesky thinking about what it could mean, it is all literally the word of God!

That's the official line, not many Christians believe that.

Thundy

09-12-2003, 08:29 PM

Mine (and Rob's) uncle is a vicar. His beliefs are very sound and , on occasion, we have quite the theological debate.

But, I'd just like to quote him on something here regarding the bible as I think it's of particular relevance to the Christianity and Biblical talk hereabouts. :confused:

"The Bible. It's a load of bollocks."

His words, and often the words of his peers.

Tommuz

09-12-2003, 08:31 PM

Not many christians take the whole of Revalations to be true. It was prolly written about 100 years after Christ and was only added under much debate when the church was putting together the bible in CE 400.

Also Read Rev 12:11ff. Remind u of anyone? Worked great miracles, calling down fire from heaven while people watched? Extended its authority everywhere? Read Acts 9:1ff if you still haven't worked it out :D

Thundy

09-12-2003, 08:45 PM

squealpiggy

09-12-2003, 08:51 PM

Originally posted by Tommuz
Not many christians take the whole of Revalations to be true. It was prolly written about 100 years after Christ and was only added under much debate when the church was putting together the bible in CE 400.

Also Read Rev 12:11ff. Remind u of anyone? Worked great miracles, calling down fire from heaven while people watched? Extended its authority everywhere? Read Acts 9:1ff if you still haven't worked it out :D

The fire from heaven bit is earlier isn't it? Rev 12 is the war in heaven, not he scourging of earth... Also it could be Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it cpould be Dresden, it could be Iraq or perhaps it is David Copperfield.

Tommuz

09-12-2003, 08:53 PM

I'm talking about St. Paul. Read that section from Acts and you'll see what i mean. Also if you know the history of the early church you can see why that would be plausible, but again if u want to know more you'll have to find out ur self. Besides i think there is only a 10 000 character limit on here

TheRobster

09-12-2003, 08:56 PM

Anyone else feeling left out since this thead started discussing the bible?

I've only ever read Genesis and Revelations! :D

squealpiggy

09-12-2003, 09:03 PM

I'm not sure who you are referring to. It could be any one of a number of people, especially Saul/Paul.

Tommuz

09-12-2003, 09:10 PM

sorry, yeah Saul/Paul i should have made that clearer, my bad.

squealpiggy

09-12-2003, 09:11 PM

I was raised catholic so I know my stuff (to a degree :D).

Tommuz

09-12-2003, 09:14 PM

amazingly so was I and still am, but i also read a lot and do philosophy and as one of my modules is the existence of God, i can go on all day about this and bore everyone to death. :p

squealpiggy

09-12-2003, 09:15 PM

If god doesn't exist... how do you know his name!?

That would be my essay. I went to a catholic school so I had to do a religious studies exam. One of the questions on the paper was "What do the miracles tell us about Jesus". My answer was "He was a good person to invite to parties". I failed.

kensa!

09-12-2003, 09:17 PM

As was I, but I'm afraid I really don't buy into any of the dogma, including Christ himself. While I don't doubt he existed, I can't believe the 'son-of-god' aspect at all. His teachings and philosophies, however, are for the most part spot on.

Tommuz

09-12-2003, 09:19 PM

lol, brilliant answer!

If god doesn't exist... how do you know his name!?

The answer is... God doesn't have a name! :p "God" is given the "labels" of YHWH/Yahweh/Allah/Jehovah/God

Destrukto

09-12-2003, 09:23 PM

Indeed, most names of God are little more that labels and sometimes just attributes...

Almost every religion in the end develops a belief system in which God is described as "Nothing" which should be read as "Nothing we can know"

Sara

10-12-2003, 01:27 AM

I don't know if god exists or not, but I don't really care. If there is a god, great, but my life isn't going to change much. And if there isn't, thats OK too, because yet again, my life doesn't change much. What is the point of worrying about something I wont know the answer to untill I die?

12th-Pie

10-12-2003, 05:26 AM

Originally posted by squealpiggy
I was raised catholic so I know my stuff (to a degree :D).

I have never heard anything so funny...

Statistic: 80% of all christians have NOT read the Bible.
85% of all atheists HAVE read the Bible

just because you were raised catholic does not mean you are some expert on the Bible.

Thundy

10-12-2003, 05:29 AM

Probably reading contributes to disbelief in God.

squealpiggy

10-12-2003, 06:51 AM

Originally posted by 12th-Pie
I have never heard anything so funny...

Statistic: 80% of all christians have NOT read the Bible.
85% of all atheists HAVE read the Bible

just because you were raised catholic does not mean you are some expert on the Bible.

Is this based on personal experience or did you just pull those statistics out of your ass?

We had to study the bible at school and I took a particular interest in it. I find it an interesting tome, though not, as everyone says, a great work of fiction. The characters are flawed and you can't identify with them, the plot is littered with holes and it's contradictory. But I do find it interesting.

I also no longer considr myself a Christian, because I cannot quite justify to myself that there is a supreme being that gives a rats arse if I have "impure thoughts".

Tommuz

10-12-2003, 11:18 AM

Technically, if you are a Catholic, you believe in a wholly simple God, that is a god which is not within space or time. There is only one instant to that God and no before or after. God cannot interfere with the universe as that would require a change. The only act God performed was to create the universe, and this was a non-temporial act. From this act, God knows the past, present and future and if you want an analogy, imagine someone, called x, standing on top of a hill or mountain looking down at someone walking a path, who was called y. X can see where y has been, where y is, and where y will go. however x can not interfere with this path that y has chosen. Basically what i'm saying is that God is omniscient and so knows everything, including your thoughts but most likely does not care about them.

Of course the problem with an omniscient God is determinism and the lack of free will, but thats a whole new ball game

Squidgy_One

10-12-2003, 11:35 AM

naff to all of ya. J.C. is not real. to explain the virgin birth, i think it was aliens. artificial insemination or whatever is the key

PoofBird

10-12-2003, 11:38 AM

Originally posted by Squidgy_One
naff to all of ya. J.C. is not real. to explain the virgin birth, i think it was aliens. artificial insemination or whatever is the key
*ignore*

Tommuz, you say the catholic idea of God is a guy who never interferes, except at creation?
I'm suprised.
How about all the old testament stories, with the smitings, manifestations and general mingling? How about Jesus being here (as a part of the trinity) and the Holy Ghost?

Rogue

10-12-2003, 11:43 AM

i do not think god is as quick to smite ppl as the old testament will have u believe....

PoofBird

10-12-2003, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by Rogue
i do not think god is as quick to smite ppl as the old testament will have u believe....

i agree.

my question was not what god was like, but if Tommuz really thought that Catholics believed God to do nothing at all.

Rogue

10-12-2003, 11:47 AM

i sometimes worry about exactly who god is. You know, i really think that our entire existence on earth could be the basis of an enormous practical joke.

its scary stuff to think about really.

squealpiggy

10-12-2003, 12:12 PM

God doled out smitings and plagues a plenty. That's what Catholic God is all about, always with the smiting and the plaguing and FLOODS!

Tommuz

10-12-2003, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by PoofBird
*ignore*

Tommuz, you say the catholic idea of God is a guy who never interferes, except at creation?
I'm suprised.
How about all the old testament stories, with the smitings, manifestations and general mingling? How about Jesus being here (as a part of the trinity) and the Holy Ghost?

That’s not what I’m saying. What I’m saying is that God has done everything that God will ever do. If God interfered He would contain potentiality. That is logical nonsense, as a god with potentiality cannot be a god. A god containing potential can change and therefore that god can die, logically speaking. God cannot contain anything that is anything less than what it is to be a God, which is perfection. The God of Catholicism is this non spatio-temporal 'thing'. It cannot interfere and the general opinion of Catholicism is to take the Bible in a non literal sense, therefore taking the smiting and interference as purely metaphorical. Jesus and the Holy Ghost/ Spirit do not affect this idea as they are only the essence of God, not the actual being. God therefore is the metaphorical 'man on the mountain' and everything to Him, is now, that is past, present and future are all one, from the creation of the universe to the end of the universe. He performed one non temporal act which has spawned the rest of time. This model is fairly affective as it allows for evolution but it also has some major problems which some people will find it hard to take. For example, with this model of God, everything is determined and so we lose responsibility for our actions. It does not mean that we cannot act as though we have free will, but according to this model we are only fooling ourselves. Another problem is, is that God still must have had a choice on whether to create the universe or not, which suggests some potentiality. Both of these seriously threaten the idea of the Wholly Simple God.

I must note here though that I am not arguing for the existence of God. That is pointless. I am only trying to put forward how different people view God. I am going to make one assumption here though, and that is that you (Poofbird) are a protestant? I may be wrong though, but I am just going on what you have said.

paperman

10-12-2003, 01:11 PM

i find the blind man story a good look on the matter;

you can tell a blind man, locked in a room his whole life that the sky is blue and wonderfull, there is no such thing as pollution and everything is great and there is green grass everywhere and no-one doing any wrong. and the only way to keep it this way is to live his life locked in this room following the rules he is told.

so the guy lives his life by these rules ("the bible") and then the day before he dies at and old age he miraclously regains his sight and goes out side sees the world for what it is, the grey skys full of pollution, people doing bad, etc.. etc.. and he has spent his whole life beleaving one thing when the total oppersite is true.

well this could be the same in a way. im not sayin i believe or dont believe my self, i am jus portraying a view.

what if one day a guy woke up drank a bottle of Jack daniels and got quite drunk (what else wud he drink if he was to do something as clever as this) then wrote the bible for a laugh with a load of mates and somehow it got translated in the years more than likely as it was found where it traveled.

unfortunatly for a lot of people, they believe in god because they are scared of hell and want to go to heaven.
and others feel they should because they are brought up to.

my fam brought me up to believe what i want. they didnt have me baptised or anything becuase they believed that i should choose when im old enough to do so.

and one thing i notice, i may not be a christian or any religion but i live my life a lot better than most people.

Mr Paper

paperman

10-12-2003, 01:25 PM

i have to add
i do like Tommuz idea,

that is a very interesting look on things, which as he said is a total other subject "FATE"

the only problem with the idea of FATE or such is that it is a waste of energy,

everything seems to have a purpose:
animals - to be born and then breed and die
so they are born dying but he energy is transported to the next one.. but this is still a waste. but this is as said, a total other subject that could lead of in loads of directions..

the question in my opinion is not "is the existence of god real?" but more, how was the universe created. if the answer to that is ever found in the next million,trillion,billion,quazillion, etc.. years then we will also have the answer to the initial question.

but at the moment as believed, you can not get something from nothing, so where did god originate from, or where did the universe, was it infinate, but how can there be infinity? there must be a start...

it all goes to the simple question: how long is a piece of string.

you cant answer a question enless you ask the person that made it.

so the only person who has the answer is the creator of the universion or the creator of time, weather it be a single electron/molicule or god......

Mr Paper

squealpiggy

10-12-2003, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by Tommuz
That’s not what I’m saying. What I’m saying is that God has done everything that God will ever do. If God interfered He would contain potentiality. That is logical nonsense, as a god with potentiality cannot be a god. A god containing potential can change and therefore that god can die, logically speaking. God cannot contain anything that is anything less than what it is to be a God, which is perfection. The God of Catholicism is this non spatio-temporal 'thing'. It cannot interfere and the general opinion of Catholicism is to take the Bible in a non literal sense, therefore taking the smiting and interference as purely metaphorical. Jesus and the Holy Ghost/ Spirit do not affect this idea as they are only the essence of God, not the actual being. God therefore is the metaphorical 'man on the mountain' and everything to Him, is now, that is past, present and future are all one, from the creation of the universe to the end of the universe. He performed one non temporal act which has spawned the rest of time. This model is fairly affective as it allows for evolution but it also has some major problems which some people will find it hard to take. For example, with this model of God, everything is determined and so we lose responsibility for our actions. It does not mean that we cannot act as though we have free will, but according to this model we are only fooling ourselves. Another problem is, is that God still must have had a choice on whether to create the universe or not, which suggests some potentiality. Both of these seriously threaten the idea of the Wholly Simple God.

I must note here though that I am not arguing for the existence of God. That is pointless. I am only trying to put forward how different people view God. I am going to make one assumption here though, and that is that you (Poofbird) are a protestant? I may be wrong though, but I am just going on what you have said.

Yes but you can look at the above statement and respond with "not necessarily". Having potentiality does not necessarily mean that God will die. Potentiality within space/time perhaps would have that effect but potentiality in the context of an infinite being can mean temporary potentiality, that is t say that everying that happens is God's will be He doesn't know it until it has happened. As an infinite being he is past, present and future so knows all, but outside the context of infinity he is learning as he goes along. Use of the term "he" is purely convenient semantics.

paperman

10-12-2003, 01:51 PM

in the simplist im saying "who created god"?

Tommuz

10-12-2003, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by squealpiggy
Yes but you can look at the above statement and respond with "not necessarily". Having potentiality does not necessarily mean that God will die. Potentiality within space/time perhaps would have that effect but potentiality in the context of an infinite being can mean temporary potentiality, that is t say that everying that happens is God's will be He doesn't know it until it has happened. As an infinite being he is past, present and future so knows all, but outside the context of infinity he is learning as he goes along. Use of the term "he" is purely convenient semantics.

It is a logical contradiction to say that a being outsdie of sapce and time can have potentiality as that itself implies the concept of time. And a God who is outside of time will know everything, past presetn and future. The Wholly Simple God (WSG) cannot learn either, because again that implies potentiality and God being less that of what it is to be God in the sense of the WSG. God, from this point of view must be pure actuality and nothing less than that. You cannot have a weak version of the WSG, which is what I think you are implying there, as that is not a WSH. God is either wholly simple or He is not. There is no inbetween.

in the simplist im saying "who created god"?

if you say that you end up asking who created what ever created God and forever backwards.

It is assumed that God is a necessary being so therefore had no creator. Everything else thereafter came from God

squealpiggy

10-12-2003, 02:04 PM

If I was talking about a wholly simple God in the context of infinity it would also be possible for the same God in the context of finity to still be working things out. God's power comes from it's infinity, not jasut because God is all powerful.

Tommuz

10-12-2003, 02:15 PM

If I was talking about a wholly simple God in the context of infinity it would also be possible for the same God in the context of finity to still be working things out.

not sure what you mean by that, could you rephrase?

(i'll edit this post once i work out what your trying to say)

squealpiggy

10-12-2003, 02:22 PM

A god can have temporary potentiality but no potentiality over the span of infinity, and still be a WSG.

Tommuz

10-12-2003, 02:26 PM

Well according to the WSG, the temporary potentiality has already been used in the creation of the universe. even then though that act was a non temporal act and so doesn't contribute to taking away the pure actuality. The model of the WSG allows for no potentiality after that initial act whatsoever

squealpiggy

10-12-2003, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by Tommuz
Well according to the WSG, the temporary potentiality has already been used in the creation of the universe. even then though that act was a non temporal act and so doesn't contribute to taking away the pure actuality. The model of the WSG allows for no potentiality after that initial act whatsoever

God exists both inside and outside of infinity though, the infinite god using the god exisiting within space/time to contribute to it's omnipotence.

Rogue

10-12-2003, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by squealpiggy
God doled out smitings and plagues a plenty. That's what Catholic God is all about, always with the smiting and the plaguing and FLOODS!

well if god is in control he does smite ppl bc ppl get smited everyday! but i think its so random. i mean GOOD ppl get smited and bad ppl walk free.

its bloody depressing how bad things happen to good people/

squealpiggy

10-12-2003, 03:08 PM

Smote? Smitten?

Tommuz

10-12-2003, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by squealpiggy
God exists both inside and outside of infinity though, the infinite god using the god exisiting within space/time to contribute to it's omnipotence.

The whole point of the WSG is that it does not require existence within space and time to be onmipotent. His omnipotence is a necessary attribute, as are all of God's attributes and do not require any contributing factors. God would be still be omnipotent even if there was no space or time in which He could exist. If God relied on an existence within in space and time then that again would take away from the nature of God.

Rogue

10-12-2003, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by squealpiggy
Smote? Smitten?

i knew it wasnt proper grammar. i did it to try and be funny.

i think the meaning of life is death.

SemiCircle

10-12-2003, 05:23 PM

how very morbid, rogue.

umm, god, exist, stuff like that.

just for the sake of us people out here who didn't do RS a-level, and have never been to a bible study group, can you people please stop using all the religious buzzwords. it's making it pretty hard to work out what you mean.

anyhow, unless i've misunderstood, tommuz is saying that god cannot intervene in the universe, because to do so would necessitate that he be a part of the universe, and if he were a part of it then he would be finite (like everything else in the universe), and so would end at some point.

which all seems a little silly to me. can i not shake the snow globe, and watch all the little white bits of paperfloat float about?

i have no idea what sp is arguing for, but he seems to be against tommuz.

squealpiggy

10-12-2003, 05:33 PM

I think that God exists both within and without space time in the context of being an infinite being, that is to say that it can shake the snowglbe but can also maipulate from within the snowglobe. God can do this as god is omnipotent.

SemiCircle

10-12-2003, 05:42 PM

ooh, weird. why is that necessary? isn't it a whole lot easier to imagine... oh, i see. you don't WANT a god that you can actually understand.

Tommuz

10-12-2003, 05:46 PM

Originally posted by SemiCircle

anyhow, unless i've misunderstood, tommuz is saying that god cannot intervene in the universe, because to do so would necessitate that he be a part of the universe, and if he were a part of it then he would be finite (like everything else in the universe), and so would end at some point.

i have no idea what sp is arguing for, but he seems to be against tommuz.

SemiCircle has hit the nail on the head. and i apologise for the terminology. The biggest problem with God is that its very hard to understand the language. I do philosophy at degree level and i do feel like i have had to learn a new language (well i sort of have anyway as i need to understand some greek and latin).

but anyway back to the point at hand, God cannot act within time as God has to work with the rules of the universe He has set up otherwise that would negate the purpose of Him putting them there in the first place. You might as well ask Him to make a square circle. Again it all comes down to actuality and poteniality. If God enters the realm of space and time, He becomes a potential thing and anything with potential has an end. This is why God must be pure actuality for the WSG to work.

P.S. if there are any words in there you don't understand i apologise and i'll explain any words you want later, unless someone else gets there first, which i hope they do :D

Kelp_Master

10-12-2003, 05:48 PM

religious groupie quote: God is real in our hearts. That's good enough for me.:weebl:

squealpiggy

10-12-2003, 11:09 PM

If God enters the realm of space and time, He becomes a potential thing and anything with potential has an end. This is why God must be pure actuality for the WSG to work.

God creates aspects of God, for example Jesus. So you have God the Father (creator, pure actuality) God the Son (the avatar: the human aspect) and God the Holy Spirit (who does the influencing and the smiting). The WSG works within Catholic doctrine which is very much tied up in the Trinity.

Tommuz

10-12-2003, 11:19 PM

Yes, the WSG does work with the Trinity, otherwise it would not have been accepted by Catholicism. However it doesn't work because God reached in at a certain point within time and Jesus was conceived. The idea is that God set the universe in motion from that single instant and every single action from that point on has been a direct result of that single, non temporal act. This includes the conception of Jesus, which was part of the 'Divine Plan' as is the Holy Spirit.

So, are we agreed now on this? :p

Shall we discuss the Protestant God now? I got a million and one arguments for and against on that area.

squealpiggy

11-12-2003, 08:56 AM

The principal difference between pretestantism and catholicism is that protestants do not believe in papal infaqllibility. Catholics officially believe that the pope is God' agent on earth so is therefore infallible as God is infallible, Protestants believe that the pope is human and therefore flawed, regardless of his positio in he church.

Tommuz

11-12-2003, 09:30 AM

There are many differences between Catholicism and Protestantism and the one you mentioned is one of the major ones. The other major one is that the God of protestantism is completely different in the sense of its given attributes. God in this case is within time and space but is everlasting. God suffers and is limited by universe. God's 'omniscience' only goes as far as knowing the past and present but not the future. This removes the problem of fate however and also with the idea of the suffering God, makes the problem of evil a little bit better to cope with, as God suffers as we do when we sin. this also accounts for the more literal stance taken on the Bible as the actual Word of God. In this case God did walk with Adam and Eve in the Garden of eden and was in the tent with Moses during the 40 year exile. It is also why the Virgin birth is not accepted, but in my own opinion the virgin birth didn't happen anyway and was no doubt a translation error from the Hebrew to Greek to Latin where 'young woman' was translated as 'virgin'. Easy mistake to make though but it has affected the entire Catholic faith.
The other big difference between Catholicism and Protestanism is that Protestantism is based on the ideas of a Greek Philosopher born over 300 years before Christ, i.e Aristotle. Aristotle believed in purpose and formed what are the foundations for the theory of Natural Law, that is everything has a purpose and anything that doesn't fulfill its purpose is therefore seen as wrong. This is why the Catholics have frown upon contraception. Of course this didn't matter in the middle ages when the population of the world was kept under control by high infant mortality rates and poor health. However now this is a major problem, creating over population and the rapid spread of STI's especially AIDS. It is also why Catholicism has its anti homosexual stance which it is heavily criticised for, although at the moment its not the Catholic Church which is under a great threat due to the stance taken on homosexuality.

squealpiggy

11-12-2003, 10:26 AM

Interestingly there was a tradition in biblical Israel whereby young girls would serve the pharisee in the temple. If a priest had sex with a girl whe was still considered virginal and any children from such a coupling were seen to be divine. Interesting eh?

Tommuz

11-12-2003, 10:42 AM

Indeed, but there were many strange things like that in the biblical times.

btw, do you get the feeling that we've hijacked this thread?

squealpiggy

11-12-2003, 11:20 AM

I think we may have done! Ah the amateur theologians that we are!

Tommuz

11-12-2003, 12:10 PM

lol, well its always nice to have a decent argument every now and again.

btw, do you think that the 'virgin birth' was just a translation error? that question goes to anyone who has an opinion. I need to argue some more :p

squealpiggy

11-12-2003, 12:14 PM

I think that it is an interesting spanner in the works but I also think that the virgin birth is one of the central tenets of the christian faith, so out of respect for Christians I would suggest that the virgin birth was exactly what it says on the tin.

Tommuz

11-12-2003, 12:22 PM

Its only the Catholic tradition that accepts it really. As far as I'm aware at any rate, the Protestant church rejects the idea of the Virgin Birth. To be honest, even though I am a Catholic, I believe that it was just a mis-interpretation of the translation from Hebrew to Greek. Then again, it could be argued that many religions have been founded upon a spelling mistake or a grammatical error.

(Another good reason why you should always be careful how you spell things, you might end up being the snowflake that started the avalanche)

kitchard

11-12-2003, 12:29 PM

Coming from an atheist, but I tend to think that the miricles are like religious advertising. Look what my religion can do, loaves and fishes, virgin births etc. Could the original authors of the bible have decided that for more people to believe, the more special effects are needed?

squealpiggy

11-12-2003, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by kitchard
Coming from an atheist, but I tend to think that the miricles are like religious advertising. Look what my religion can do, loaves and fishes, virgin births etc. Could the original authors of the bible have decided that for more people to believe, the more special effects are needed?

No. The miracles ar supposed to be examples of the power of faith, not magic tricks to get more believers. Speaking as an atheist could do with a little more research ;)

kensa!

12-12-2003, 01:56 AM

God cannot act within time as God has to work with the rules of the universe He has set up otherwise that would negate the purpose of Him putting them there in the first place. You might as well ask Him to make a square circle. Again it all comes down to actuality and poteniality. If God enters the realm of space and time, He becomes a potential thing and anything with potential has an end. This is why God must be pure actuality for the WSG to work.

Isn't the general belief of Christians & Muslims that God is infinite, infallible, omnipotent and omnipresent? Therefore he is both inside and outside the 'snow globe' at all points in time & space, and doesn't have to comply with any laws since he is infallable?

be honest, even though I am a Catholic, I believe that it was just a mis-interpretation of the translation from Hebrew to Greek.

Have to agree, I think it was a mistranslation of 'virtuous' or something similar. While she wasn't a virgin, I don't think Mary exactly 'slept around'.

Another huge difference between the Protestant and Catholic faiths is the belief in transubstantiation, no? Catholics believe that at the point in mass when the priest repeats the words of Christ at the Last Supper - "this is my blood" "this is my body" "do this in memory of me" etc - the wine and wafer do in fact turn into the blood and body of Jesus, while Protestants believe that it's a symbol of the bloody and body. I never bought the Catholic stance, despite having been to mass every Sunday from the age of 3 til 18. I was even an alterboy ^^;

terrrbite

12-12-2003, 02:57 AM

Rogue

12-12-2003, 03:00 AM

Originally posted by terrorbite
[B]Religion is man-made nonsense created to control and brainwash people. Its a joke.

Religion is not man-made nonsense. It is a way for people to get together and pray to their God (everyone's god is the same God and he hears everyone's prayers).

I dont think it matters what religion you are ..as far as getting into heaven..but i do think that there are some ppl who are going to hell (murders, etc etc)

terrrbite

12-12-2003, 03:05 AM

Religion is not man-made nonsense.

How do you know otherwise?

It is a way for people to get together and pray to their God (everyone's god is the same God and he hears everyone's prayers).

You don't need a belief in god to bring people together. And if everyones god is the same god, why all the religions?!

i do think that there are some ppl who are going to hell (murders, etc etc)

Hell? That is even more ridiculous than the concept of heaven. Even my friend, who is doing a degree in theology doesn't believe in hell. Ooo, the devil is gonna get me! Lol.

Rogue

12-12-2003, 03:08 AM

you are confusing your opinions with fact my friend.

You judge heaven and hell to be ridiculous when you dont even know for sure if they exist. No one knows.

terrrbite

12-12-2003, 03:09 AM

you are confusing your opinions with fact my friend.

Which facts are these?

Rogue

12-12-2003, 03:10 AM

no one has any straight facts on if there is a god, heaven, etc.

So therefore no one's views are right....as far as we know.

terrrbite

12-12-2003, 03:12 AM

You judge heaven and hell to be ridiculous when you dont even know for sure if they exist. No one knows.

Exactly, so why waste your time with religion? If everyone goes to heaven, then I can just sit back and relax and wait for it. I've heard good things about that place. If it doesn't exist... well, I won't have wasted my time on earth muttering gibberish in a church.

Rogue

12-12-2003, 03:13 AM

Yeah you can just sit and type gibberish in a forum.

There is such a thing as Faith. A lot of people have it. And it is a very commendable thing to have.

terrrbite

12-12-2003, 03:16 AM

There is such a thing as Faith. A lot of people have it. And it is a very commendable thing to have.

Well good for you.

Don't get me wrong - I totally respect your right to believe in whatever you want.

Rogue

12-12-2003, 03:18 AM

terrrbite

12-12-2003, 03:23 AM

my only problem with your arguments was that you seemed to be saying all people who believe in an organized religion are completely stupid and irrational for trusting in something that has no proof behind it.

While failing to realize that your own belief that there might not be a god, hell , etc is equally without proof.

Really need to go to bed (4:19am)
But I will return to pick up on this debate :)

Its at times like that I need to call upon my mentor James Stannage.

squealpiggy

12-12-2003, 06:44 AM

Religion is man-made nonsense created to control and brainwash people. Its a joke.

And take a look at things like the catholic church... racist, homophobic, sexist...

I'm not saying there are definitely no higher beings, but if there are, they are nothing to do with religions.
If there is a heaven, everyone goes there... not just certain people from certain religions.

You don't need religion to tell you how to live your life. I know not to steal, kill, etc. I'm a good person. I am comfortable without a religion. Seek solace elsewhere.

I'm open when it comes to things like the paranormal though, such as spirits, and I definitely believe aliens are out there...

I grew up in the Catholic Church and I have never encountered any racism, nobody is particularly homophobic and the extent of sexism is saying that all priests should be men. I have had many positive experiences of that particular religion though it is not something thaqt I now believe in, and I find this uninformed opinion to be a touch ridiculous. As for sexism, racism and sexism, the field of science has had some dodgy moments what with eugenics, attempting to "cure" homosexuality using electric shock programmes, use of pseudo-science to justify the oppression of women etc. Does this mean that everyone involved in science is racist, sexist and homophobic? No of course not.

The whole of your comments on religion seem to me to be that bizarre superiority complex that people use to justify to themselves that they have encountered something which they just don't understand. As someone with a largely catholic family I object to your assertion that they are all ignorant for believing in God instead of just believing in sensible things like ghosts and aliens.