religious?

[cardsurgguy]

I decided to post this after reading a thread by jarsofclay which started by questioning something about Neanderthals, but soon became a rather heated debate about evolution and religion.

I was just curious to see the percentage of people here who do believe in a higher power or who do not believe in a higher power.

Me personally I do not believe in a higher power, and I would think given the fact that we're obviously more science oriented than the general population, there would be a higher number of people who don't believe in a higher power here than in the general population. But I'm curious to see if this is the case, so I figured I'd post a poll.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[SaltySqueegee]

you forgot agnosticism...

 

[g3pro]

wait, so life on earth is random?????? whoa!


i believe in God for many many reasons...

 

[ZekeMD]

I'm not sure how accurate your poll will be due mainly to the subject. If I was atheist (I'm not, but supposing I was) I probably wouldn't waste my time reading a post entitled, "Religious." Just something to think about.

Oh, and for the record, I do believe in God.

 

[twaspatz]

You forgot to ponder the fact that perhaps the most educated among us would be the most likely to recognize that the only explanation for the intricacies of life could be occur via intelligent design. I just get sick and tired of all these evolution vs. creation posts. The two views are in no way mutually exclusive, and are instead highly supportive of one another. Evolution using the building blocks created by God is in no way anti-biblical nor unscientific. For those who are well read in the Bible, current scientific theory only serves to support the Scripture (though obviously not from a literal standpoint). Only a ***** would insist that everything in the Bible must be read literally. Obviously, Jesus wasn't a rock.

 

[Flack Pinku]

Religious? Yes.

 

[SaltySqueegee]

Originally posted by twaspatz
You forgot to ponder the fact that perhaps the most educated among us would be the most likely to recognize that the only explanation for the intricacies of life could be occur via intelligent design. I just get sick and tired of all these evolution vs. creation posts. The two views are in no way mutually exclusive, and are instead highly supportive of one another. Evolution using the building blocks created by God is in no way anti-biblical nor unscientific. For those who are well read in the Bible, current scientific theory only serves to support the Scripture (though obviously not from a literal standpoint). Only a ***** would insist that everything in the Bible must be read literally. Obviously, Jesus wasn't a rock.

I agree with everything you said. But keep in mind that just because someone takes something literally, they aren't necessarily a *****. Do you literally believe in the existence of the heart, lungs and gi tract? It could just be your perspective. Maybe it just appears that those things exist. The best tool in a scientists arsenal is limiting the amount of assumptions we have.

In the end, everything is a value assumption.

 

[musiclink213]

ya wanna know my view on evolution vs. creation? i think they coexist. No where does it say that G-d's day is 24 hours, so who's to say that a billion years is not a day? maybe the realm of the dinosaurs was actually just a day in G-d's creation, and so it was not worth noting, since it only happened in one day. Like, he put them there on the 3rd day lets say, but then they died on the 3rd day too. ya dig?

that's me trying to connect my science side and my religious side without ending up as a schizophrenic.

 

[Zweihander]

Originally posted by MDTom
I agree with everything you said. But keep in mind that just because someone takes something literally, they aren't necessarily a *****. Do you literally believe in the existence of the heart, lungs and gi tract? It could just be your perspective. Maybe it just appears that those things exist. The best tool in a scientists arsenal is limiting the amount of assumptions we have.

In the end, everything is a value assumption.

That's philosophy, not science!!
Stop trying to confuse me!



I'm easily confused.

 

[LP1CW]

Belief in God is always predicated on faith. I do believe that there is a God. However, I believe that being agnostic is a rationale, if not more honest position, for there are many days that I do have doubts. But I also believe that doubt is a part of faith, much like Tillich wrote.


Atheism is the most intellectually weak position to adopt for it is built on conceit. We are finite beings, yet there are many amoung us that will state, without equivocation, that there is no God. How can a limited being state that they know for sure that there isn't a God. They might state I don't believe that there is a God, but that there isn't a God? Well, that is clearly the position of a fool. If I were to ask you to close your eyes and imagine 5 pencils, you could do it. How about ten, really see them. Yes, you might be able to do that. How about 30? Now, how about an infinite number of pencils? You can't do it, yet people assert that there is no such thing as an infinite being, but they can't even think of an infinite number of anything. We are just to limited to fathom the existence of such a being. So, I choose to believe. I can't prove there's a God, but when I think about my life, the good and the bad, and yes my mother is dying, I still choose to believe. Today is a warm day, almost spring day in Boston. That's a gift. Maybe that's a gift from God.

WHom shall I trust? I will put no faith in the intellect of a man or a woman that is so limited.

 

[Zweihander]

Originally posted by twaspatz
You forgot to ponder the fact that perhaps the most educated among us would be the most likely to recognize that the only explanation for the intricacies of life could be occur via intelligent design. I just get sick and tired of all these evolution vs. creation posts. The two views are in no way mutually exclusive, and are instead highly supportive of one another. Evolution using the building blocks created by God is in no way anti-biblical nor unscientific. For those who are well read in the Bible, current scientific theory only serves to support the Scripture (though obviously not from a literal standpoint). Only a ***** would insist that everything in the Bible must be read literally. Obviously, Jesus wasn't a rock.

I also find it odd how Christians who choose not to interpret the Bible literally are so often dismissed as apologists who are just backpedalling now that they've been proven wrong.

Augustine of Hippo warned Christians long ago of investing too much faith in whatever their current interpretations of Scripture were because he was convinced that such a dogmatic adherance would inevitably cause conflicts. He supported the idea that the evidence of the world should allow a progressively educated approach to understanding the Bible.

 

[quideam]

Although i'm hesitant to add to this thread, I will say that personally, I do not believe in "God", at least not the kind that is described by western religions. Do I think that the existence of a 'higher' being is possible? Sure - I have no evidence to the contrary. But do I think that the 'evidence' given for the Judeo-Christian God is true? Not really. If anyone wants to get into a debate about this, you're welcome to PM me (I'm a philosophy major with a concentration in philosophy of religion), so I would be more than happy to discuss this.

 

[SaltySqueegee]

Originally posted by Zweihander
That's philosophy, not science!!
Stop trying to confuse me!



I'm easily confused.

Take a philosophy of science course and be very confused!!!

 

[SaltySqueegee]

Originally posted by quideam
(I'm a philosophy major with a concentration in philosophy of religion), so I would be more than happy to discuss this.

Excellent major for cocktail parties. Also, great for playing 'devil's advocate'.

It's funny how people think science, religion and philosophy don't mix, when in fact it's all (in my mind) just a different shade of gray.

 

[quideam]

Originally posted by MDTom
Excellent major for cocktail parties. Also, great for playing 'devil's advocate'.

Also excellent for recongizing, analyzing, and understanding insanity

 

[CharlesCA]

Religious, no way.

Religions are evil.

 

[snowbear]

Disclaimer: These are only my opinions.

Cardsurgguy, I am with you. I don't believe in a higher power.

I think it would be easier for me to believe in a higher power; it's definately more comforting. To think that everything happens for a reason, or that there is a heaven (I haven't completely ruled this out, but I would definately bet a large sum of money that there is no hell), or that there is a divine power looking out for all of us would definately make me feel more at ease. I think that faith is definately a good thing for people, it's often an inspiration for people to lead healthier and more productive lives. I am not too fond of institutionalized religion however, as it has been used many times throughout history to justify violence against other human beings.

In terms of Christianity, my mother's religion, Jesus Christ sounds like a great man with very respectable values, who helped others. I just don't think he is the son of God.

Although I don't believe in a higher power, I do believe in people.

On another note, I have a pretty solid, working philosophy of human nature of which I believe the movie, Monster, lends great support to. Most people have a difficult time with this philosophy, but no one as of yet has been able to prove my philosophy incorrect. On the contrary, most people find themselves more believing of my philosophy on human nature after hearing my argument than they were before.

The reason I bring up this philosophy is that I think one reason people do not believe it, is because it's not an easy thing to believe, just like believing that there is no higher power is also not easy to believe.

But my philosophy is basically this, as people, we have no control over who we are.

This belief may be especially difficult for a bunch of people who have worked tremendously hard to be admitted to medical school.

I did call this a working philosophy. Obviously, I am very young and I have a lot of life experiences in front of me to learn from. There are a lot of very intelligent people on this forum and I look forward to hearing any opinions.

 

[rgporter]

Originally posted by ZekeMD
I'm not sure how accurate your poll will be due mainly to the subject. If I was atheist (I'm not, but supposing I was) I probably wouldn't waste my time reading a post entitled, "Religious." Just something to think about.

Oh, and for the record, I do believe in God.

Not going to be a problem due to the fact that religious type posts seem to be a lightning rod for enthusiasts from both sides of the debate.

 

[smuwillobrien]

I think people start religious topics when they've got nothing better to talk about. This is a pre-allopathic form for christ's sake (bad pun). If you want to talk about religion and listen to there same arguments over and over go take a philosophy of science class.

 

[docjolly]

It all depends on what you mean by "religious"...

do you mean someone who loosely follows the doctrine of his/her faith, but still perfunctorily goes to church, put ashes on his/her head, and wears a cross around the neck (in the specific case of a Christian),etc?

or do you mean someone who is a firm believer and follower of the doctrine that he/she professes to be true?

obviously, these two types of people are vastly different from one another, but each can claim to be "religious." maybe there should be some type of clarification in the OP...