AntitheisticMystic it seems.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

To quote Christopher Hitchens, "I am not even an atheist so much as an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful." I notice you disagree with my post. Please explain where I'm wrong.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Haha I said Higgins I feel that forgiving us was a safety net for humanity if it went wrong. So perfection was intended, but if it didn't go as planned, it was fixable... unless I misinterpreted the post and God.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

God's plan may go wrong and needs a safety net? Then he isn't all powerful.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Hmm. I guess not. I guess I'll retract my vote until I can think of a way to portray him as all powerful. I just hate the disagreement of religion since faith really holds a lot of people together and keeps many people going everyday. I'm not religious, but I really like religious people, even religious atheists, I think faith is a cool concept (which is why I'm an agnostic theist), but when I people try to convince me they're right I have trouble dealing with it. I'm okay with practice of religion or the researching to disprove it, but I don't like being told I'm wrong on a subject without a right answer. just saying, you don't have to care.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Thanks for retracting your vote until you can solidify your stance. Not many people are that honest. And faith does hold people together, but it also leads to unprecedented murder, oppression, and social backwardness. What exactly do you mean by religious atheists and agnostic theist? Those terms both contradict. We don't have to know the right answer to know which answers are wrong. I don't know what 15,678 X 23,954 is, but I can tell you it sure as hell isn't 4.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Well atheism is a religion and it doesn't fall under irreligion. So if you're a religious atheist than you are more than positive there is no God and you enforce that to the fullest, or the crazy ones that stand outside in sandwich signs screaming "THERE IS NO GOD". Rather than a lenient atheist who doesn't believe in God just because they don't think there is a God. I'm an agnostic theist which makes perfect sense. I don't believe god can be disproven or proven, but I like to believe in one. I can't tell you He's there, but I think He is. You're right about the math equation, but I don't think anyone can be "right" about a religious subject. Also for the murder and stuff, I think he's being used as a scapegoat rather than a reason.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Never say that atheism is a religion. That's wrong on so many levels. Atheism is the absence of a religion; it literally means "without theism". Atheism doesn't carry with it any beliefs, only the rejection of one belief (religion). An atheist may believe in evolution and the big bang, or an atheist may believe that humans came from trees. That God can't be proven or disproved isn't a belief, it's a fact. The difference between you and a theist is that you recognize that there is no proof of God and no reason to believe in religion, you just choose to believe because you want to. In most cases the choice isn't conscious, as it is with you. There is one truth out there; something //is// right. I think you mean that no one can be proved right. Yes, the scapegoat thing is true at the higher levels, but that doesn't change anything. Religion and God were the cause of the crusades, ordered by the pope. The pope's real reason may have been money/power, but that doesn't change the fact that these horrible things were allowed to happen, even encouraged, because of belief in God. The soldiers that made up the conquering armies were all fighting for their religion.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Yeah what you said is all right for all I know. Though I wanted to say an agnostic can be two things ,someone who doesn't know if there is a god or not, and someone who thinks proof for either side is non-existent. I am the latter and I chose to think there is some sort of higher power. So yeah... that's pretty much it.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." I forget who said that, but I like it. That quote is my response to you saying that I don't have to care. Not caring has two possible results: nothing happens or bad things happen. Nothing good has ever come from not caring.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Well I didn't know if you'd be like "cool story bro" or "tl;dr" or if you'd actually read what I had to tell.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

That's not true, supposedly he used his powers to instill free will. However the fact remains that he knew what would happen if he gave free will, assuming he is omniscient he knew all along that original sin would happen

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Because God **is** all knowing and put us on this Earth as a test for //us// and for us to gain knowledge and experience and to learn lessons. He is **not** a sadistic jerk.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

If we're here to be tested, either God doesn't know how we will perform (not all knowing) or wants to test us anyway for some reason. These tests are pretty brutal, and if God already knows how it will turn out then the tests are pointless. So God puts us through these unbelievable painful tests, all the while knowing the result. The point of the test isn't to determine our worthiness; God already knows. So we're back to sadistic jerk. If God is indeed all knowing, the tests are pointless and He has some other reason for indiscriminately torturing the people He loves.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

He already knows how we will turn out and what will happen. But the whole point of the //tests// is for us to find out how we react to it/ to realize who we are and how we deal with these things.I don't really know how to word it.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

So God created us and put us here so that we could learn about ourselves? If that's the only object of our existence, why create us at all? Our purpose doesn't exist if we don't and is only created by our existence, making our existence a paradox.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

That's because it's way too far beyond human comprehension. We're not meant to understand it yet. That's just what I believe, anyway.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

This is why religion continues to thrive. I've just irrefutably pointed out the flaws in your beliefs and your response, rather than to even consider that I may be right, is to say that we aren't supposed to understand. That's impossible to argue against and is the equivalent of plugging your ears, closing your eyes and yelling "I can't hear you!" Your only argument now is that you have no argument, but that's not going to stop you from believing you're right. If there are things beyond human comprehension, why not just accept that the mysteries of the universe and creation are beyond human comprehension? If you're going to believe in something that you can't understand, you might as well just renounce your faith (the purpose of which is to offer answers) and say that we don't understand the universe, and that's okay. If you're okay with not understanding God, why are you not okay with not understanding the universe? I have a feeling that no matter what I say, your beliefs aren't subject to change. Am i right? No pun intended.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

It even says in the Bible humans do not have the capacity to understand. Also, the same can be said for you as well. Why don't you just accept the fact that God's will, intentions and work is beyond your comprehension? And, just because //you// see them as flaws doesn't mean they actually are.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

If they aren't flaws then you should have a response other than "we aren't supposed to understand". Don't cite the Bible in a religious debate. If the Bible is evidence for religion, then comic books are evidence for Superman. I'll accept that things are beyond our comprehension. The difference between accepting that the universe is beyond our comprehension and that God is beyond our comprehension is that God is a specific hypothesis. By saying the universe is beyond comprehension, I mean that I have no idea how it works or why it's here. By saying that God is beyond our comprehension, you offer an explanation for the universe and none for God. All that does is move the unknown from the universe to God, accomplishing nothing.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

And you know God is a specific hypothesis how, exactly? You don't.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

...I don't even know how to respond to that question. Specific-specified, precise, or particular; having a special application, bearing, or reference. Hypothesis-a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, asserted merely as a provisional conjecture; a mere guess or assumption. Now, with those definitions in mind, would you care to rephrase your question?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Nope, I'm good I do have another question though. Why don't you believe in Him?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

For the same reason you don't believe in leprechauns.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

That's not really a reason

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Okay, then I'll let you answer the question for me. Why don't you believe in leprechauns?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I knew you were gonna say something like that. Anyway I get the point.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

As I said in another comment, let's switch roles for a second. I believe that Patrick Swayze is the creator. Convince me I'm wrong. What it comes down to is that you can't. Any belief, no matter how irrational, can be defended. Not because there is any sound logic or reasoning behind it, but because there are certain arguments that are just impossible to counter, regardless of what situation they're applied to.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

The effect of religious belief is most certainly not exclusively harmful. In some cases yes, when it's used to justify war and such. However, many people use religion to establish proper morals and gain a sense of security in times lacking it. It has helped many, in addition to any harm caused, so it is not solely a harmful presence.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

People that use religion to get morals or courage can do that without religion. It's a placebo effect. The studies show that prayer only makes a difference in the wellness of a patient when they know they're being prayed for.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Well people gaining security is still a good thing, because it frees their minds to be better people instead of fixating on fear of the unknown. And some people wouldn't act as morally without the fear of hell or motivation of heaven (it shouldn't be that way, but it is). If a placebo works, it's still serving the purpose of medicine despite only causing psychological change.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

And if religion had no negative consequences, I'd be perfectly fine with people using it as a crutch and a leash. But since religion causes and/or justifies massive amounts of bigotry, murder, and general conflict, I say it isn't worth allowing it to continue. If they're too weak to handle life without a divine overseer, that's their problem and they can adjust. I'm not going to pretend to take their irrational beliefs seriously so that they can go on being blissfully ignorant and allowing their behavior to be controlled by the words of a 2,000 year old book. I want them to think for themselves.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Religion is not intended to cause or justify bigotry. It is simply misused, and people fail to realize the contemporary prejudice was likely human error in writing it. It is not a weakness to believe in a deity, and people don't just do so because they think they are. There will be bad people in the world no matter what, and the problem is that people interpret religion too literally when its meaning can be twisted. It is not written perfectly, but it has the potential to help many. If you're suggesting a prohibition of religion would be beneficial, Stalin tried it and it sucked. It's an invasive infringements of rights and I certainly hope that's not what you suggested. Just because you do not perceive religion as plausible does not mean everyone who does is an idiot and is making the world a worse place. That puts you in no better a place than one who fanatically supports religion and believes hell is the only place for anyone who doesn't. Do you really think you're so much better than them for being atheistic? You talk about them like the dumbest people in the world, when most of them are more open minded, respectful, and less extreme than you are proving to be.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Belief in a deity may not be a weakness, but most people take it beyond that to the point where it becomes a weakness. If people just want to believe that there is a God and He created the universe, I see no problem with that. I still find it illogical, but a belief like that isn't going to cause any harm and it doesn't block out reason, weakening a mind. But organized religion does, and also takes it a step past illogical. Almost any Christian would just as soon be a Muslim, Taoist, Hindu, etc. if he/she happened to have been born into that culture. Every religious group claims to experience their God on a daily basis. If there is a God, one of these faiths may be right, but there's no way to determine which. They all have equal amounts of support and they all experience miracles and take those as proof of their God. I don't understand how anyone can think about things like that and still believe that they've got it figured out, their miracles are the genuine ones, and everyone else is just full of it. No, I don't think I'm better than anyone else because I don't believe in a God. But I do think that people who believe show a lack of critical thinking, if limited only to that area

by Anonymous 11 years ago

How? It's not a lack of thinking, but simply //different// thinking in my opinion. Humans are psychologically built to embrace the notion of religion (it fits nicely into our minds, sort of). I don't think a person is stupid or obviously wrong for believing something that could very well turn out true. I personally don't believe so, but I don't think others are illogical for it. Someone can believe in a deity and be a perfectly reasonable, logic-embracing person (not that you said anything to suggest otherwise)

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Like I said, of course they can be logical and reasonable while believing in a deity, but not in that area. If a person sits down and logically, critically analyzes the tenets of their religion, the only logical conclusion is that their religion is, like the other thousands of religions, in the believer's head. Given the choice between our most promising scientific explanations, no explanation, or a religious explanation with 10,000 counterparts and no factual support to set it apart from those 10,000 others, how can a person (thinking logically) decide that religion is the best choice?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Religion does not clash fundamentally with science. The two are not mutually exclusive. Please, explain to me how religion is the //only// possible conclusion after enough reasoning.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

"There will be bad people in the world no matter what, and the problem is that people interpret religion too literally when its meaning can be twisted." My response to this is a quote. "With or without it [religion] you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." -Steven Weinberg

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I think that someone who does evil things isn't a good person. The problem is often in execution of religion, not the theory. And the execution is the fault of those believing it, mostly. I agree that religion is easy to use to justify bad deeds, and for bigots to ensure their children will be bigots, but it also gives many people strength, and I do not think they can be measured, sadly. Many aspects of it seem illogical to me as well, but I was not raised very religious. I think that if you were raised in a religious family, there'd be a great chance of you being religious as well. The point is, religion appeals to a different belief in the universe. It's impossible to disprove, so I'm not sure how anyone can rule out the possibility of a deity in the first place. However, I think that someone raised religious is not dumb in any way for deciding to be religious. I think the quote makes it sound like religion is the only thing that can do that, and I disagree if that's the implication. It can, however, make a hateful mind out of someone who could be loving, but it can just as often give courage and hope to someone who'd otherwise feel incomplete.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

It's a flaw in our minds to feel incomplete and powerless without the support of an invisible, unknowable, intangible deity. A flaw that I'd like to see erased, because like you said, along with the people that find strength in faith, there are many who kill and oppress because of their faith. Yes, religion is impossible to disprove but I don't see why that would make a difference. You can't disprove me when I say that Patrick Swayze is the creator, but that doesn't mean it has the slightest chance of being accurate. I don't see a difference between Abrahamic religion and people who worship trees and experience evil spirits. Because there is no difference, other than the demographic and a few details. I'd actually be more inclined to side with tree worshippers because trees are tangible. We know that trees exist and they have a profound impact on our planet and our lives. God, on the other hand, is all hearsay. If I were raised in a religious home, I'd still arrive at the same conclusions about religion. My father was raised religiously, and he decided around age 12 that it was silly. He and I have very similar thought processes, so I think I would have had the same reaction.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Like I said, people aren't religious //because they're weak//. It's simply that religion makes them //stronger//. I don't think other religions are any more disprovable, and the whole Patrick Swayze actually has reason to seem unlikely, unlike a presence of a deity in general, because he existed as an actual person on Earth, and made human mistakes, making it unlikely for him to be God. That's why the appearance of God isn't specified in the Bible (to my knowledge); there is reason for it to be unlikely. I think it's useless to being up hypothetical situations about how you could've been raised, because there are other psychological factors involved. I hate to accuse, but I think you're only speculating that because that's the reality that seems the most pleasant to believe, to you. Kind of like religion, in a way.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Why would it be more pleasant for the universe to have no structure? I have no invisible means of support and I need to pick up my own slack rather than let God do it for me. If I believed in God I would just not give a fuck about anything because God knows what He's doing. You're saying the presence of a deity has no reason to be unlikely? What about the fact that there's nothing to support that theory other than "well, what else could it be?" If there was any logical reason to believe in a God people wouldn't need faith. It wouldn't even be called faith, it would just be called knowledge. Or at the very least it would be called a hypothesis or something like that. But the lack of evidence is so blatant that faith isn't even dignified with titles like that. You asked me to explain how "religion is the //only// possible conclusion". I believe you worded that incorrectly. I said that religion should be counted out as a solution after careful reasoning. And there's really nothing else to say on that subject other than what I already said. And yes, religion and science do clash and have been clashing since we came up with science.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Yes, I did phrase that wrong. And you fail to actually explain how science and religion clash. I believe, as an agnostic, that God possibly created the laws of physics and the universe and serves as a higher power above those laws, so what part of religion would render science implausible? While religion has no evidence to disprove it, there is the simple reason of believing it when one thinks "where must have everything come from?". Science does not currently answer it, and I think it's completely understandable for someone else to think that there might've been someone to create that. Let's get one thing straight: //there is absolutely no basis whatsoever to argue the probability of religion//, assuming it does not directly clash with science, which I challenge you to prove to me it does. And to another key point, believing in God serves as no basis whatsoever to abandon effort in life and let God do everything for you. Maybe some delusional person thinks that (probably somewhere), but that's not anywhere near what religious teachings encourage. They encourage actually taking control of your life because it will impact something eternal after it.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Just because we don't have an answer doesn't mean that the first answer off the top of our heads is at all plausible. Religion and science clash because everything we know about science says that magic is impossible, and magic is precisely what religion is. Let's take Christianity as an example. God floods the whole world. Explain how that is scientifically plausible. The Bible says that a senior citizen collected two of every animal and put them on a boat. Where did Noah find penguins in Palestine? That's just one aspect of that story that is ridiculous. How did Noah not get devoured by the lions and bears? Jonah was eaten by a whale and survived...that's pretty unscientific. Also, science requires careful examination and testing, complete with evidence, before granting a theory any plausibility. Religion has none of those things. If religion and science didn't clash, 93% of members of the National Academy of Sciences wouldn't be atheist. The people who know the most about science don't buy into religion. That should be evidence enough that science contradicts religion.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Sorry for not clarifying this earlier- I'm not specifically defending Christianity, I'm defending the possibility of the presence of a God in general. Of course the Bible is implausible in a literal sense, but few religious people take it literally. The reason you claim science and religion clash is because we've never seen scientific laws broken. That doesn't mean there's nothing that //can// break them, that just means we assume so because we've not seen it. Science can be wrong all the time, and many physics anomalies are seen that defy laws we once took for granted. What's to say that God could not bypass them in the same way? If he existed and could, we'd probably not be able to observe it. Science leaves a lot of blank space, and religion is simply something some people fill it with (and it's fine for others not to). It is not the first thought off the top of everyone's heads, but for many it is the //only// thought that seems at all plausible, and that boils down to psychology, not intelligence. Atheism and Theism are both assumptions about the unknown, and in a world of infinite possiblilties, I don't see how you can definitively prove either less plausible.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Because everything we know about everything points away from religion. That's why religion is implausible. Religion has been used to explain the unknown since the dawn of man, and we've since found the real explanation for those things. People used to think epilepsy was the work of the gods. And then we found out what was really going on. And so it is with all things. Religion is just the temporary answer we come up with (since we can't bear to not know) and religious belief is amended every time we find the real explanations. So over the last however many thousand years, religion has come through...never. Science and reason have come through...always. That's why putting stock into religion is foolish. Your only argument is that since we don't know, anything is possible. Well, technically, yes, anything is possible. But I'm talking about what is plausible. And I can't think of anything more implausible than the completely improvable and untestable belief that there is a magical, all knowing entity in command of the universe. The argument that we don't know everything is not support for any hypothesis. All that means is that we don't know, not that our wild guesses are plausible.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Again, you're rejecting the idea that theistic realities may control science. Epilepsy, for example, is not proven to have no ties to religion. We only know //what// happens, while religion gives an answer for //why// it happened. Religious extremism such as literal belief of the bible can be disproved, but the possibility of a God never will be, and never can be. The existence of a God would not mean all of science is invalid, it would simply mean that God created the laws of physics (which only he can, but never shall break, i presume), to give order to the universe (or something of the like). Just because God exists (hypothetically) doesn't mean science immediately is voided, and just because science makes progress, doesn't mean God does not exist. There is no proof of there being no God, and there is no proof of it being implausible, only hunches.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

The plausibility of the existence of a God is entirely subjective to individual nurture, genetics, and psychology, therefore while you deem it unlikely, another may deem it likely, and I, along with many others, find myself close to a middle ground. You will never prove to me nor anybody else that it's implausible because we have different brains and it's an entirely subjective subject. It'd be like trying to definitively prove to another person that a certain song is better than another. Your reasons for thinking so may be entirely set in stone and seem entirely reasonable and logical to you, while those same reasons may be outweighed by other reasons to another. To you, the existence of a God is a random, undisprovable notion. To another person, it's the most likely explanation for all the unanswered questions in the universe. People have been wrong about it before, but that was because of extremism literal interpretation of fact. The pure belief of theism has no conflict with science until it enters practice and is introduced to a fair amount of misinterpretation. I'm not trying to convert you, I'm just trying to explain to you that it's not a mental disease to believe in a God.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Plausibility is not subjective; it can be quantified. Plausibility comes down to odds, and the odds are that everything has a natural, rational explanation. If you don't buy that, look at the religious diversity throughout time and the world. What are the odds that any one faith of a million is correct? Again, all you've said is that religion can't be disproved. Neither can my theory about Patrick Swayze. I know that religion isn't a mental disease. Disease is too strong of a word. I consider it a weakness of the human condition. It's natural, of course, but religion is basically a shield from reality. And the way people practice it often has horrific consequences. A 14 year old girl was raped in Bangladesh recently. She was convicted of adultery and whipped until she died. Her rapist got off with a few lashes. This is the same country that recently shut down some bloggers that were offensive to Islam, in response to angry Muslims threatening to march on some city.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I already told you- I'm not defending specific religions, I'm defending //theism//. I ask that you do not being up examples of it failing in practice because those same people, through lack of character, would exhibit flaws in judgment and action without religion as well. Someone who wants to justify something wrong will find a way with or without religion. It only varies what the exact flaws in judgment will be. Religion is not a //shield from reality//. It is used as such by some people, but that is not its fundamental nature. I know far too many people who believe in God that embrace science, reason, logic, reality, and good moral for that to be even slightly applicable as a generalization. There is absolutely no possibility of telling how plausible religion seems. To many of us it //is// the natural, rational explanation. I think that you have difficulty grasping the fact that not everybody is capable of sharing your view on the matter, and that it's not beneficial to try to make people reject views that make them better people. They're not lying to themselves because it truly seems true to them. It is not weakness because it strengthens them.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

You are convinced that religious people are all part of organized religion, while many believe in God without all the lists of things that are wrong (founded on contemporary prejudice and assumption) and all that. They simply believe that God created the universe, and that he controls (or at least influences) what occurs in it. It is not an excuse to not try in life, to hate on people, or to force beliefs on people. People simply think differently. You're entitled to the belief that you're right and they're wrong, but you're not entitled to the belief that they're weak or dumb. If you honestly thought Patrick Swayze created the world, I'd disagree and think I'm right, but I wouldn't assume you're delusional, weak, stupid, or such. I really wouldn't, because I don't know for sure that you're wrong and I'd be stupid to fixate on that when aside from that you may be a smart, logic-embracing, caring individual. The judgment of that should //only// be based off of actions, morals, and intentions, not beliefs. That's the problem. What is there to calculate odds by, tell me? There's infinite potential realities involving God and infinite without. What statistics are there to compare?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Belief in a God still stands in direct opposition to logic and reason. There may be nothing to refute that hypothesis, but there is certainly nothing to support it, which makes it nothing more than a guess. No explanation is more logical and rational than a guess. I don't maintain that religious people are weak or dumb, only that they show a lack of critical thinking in that area. To adopt an untestable, unknowable hypothesis as the explanation behind everything is illogical and irrational, showing a lack of critical thinking. Ordinarily, not knowing for sure that someone is wrong would be a good reason to let them believe what they want. But when their beliefs are untestable, unknowable, and improvable (positively or negatively), I'd say that I'm perfectly entitled to call them foolish for believing such things. We don't know for sure that they're wrong because their assertions are not subject to testing, not because there is any reason to think they might be right.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

And I maintain that you display the same lack of critical thinking by fundamentally rejecting this hypothesis on no basis. You can't disprove it, and if it's true, then people could truly have felt close to God and have been affected by him. One can just as easily say "The only thing to support the hypothesis that scientific law cannot be broken by higher power is a lack of evidence. To be completely convinced of something there is no evidence to suggest, only lack of evidence to refute, shows a lack of critical thinking." You are //just// as convinced of there not being a God as theists are of there being a God. You think it's unlikely, they think it's likely. But BOTH are untestable and unprovable and there is absolutely NO logical reason for you to have COMPLETE faith in your conviction of there being no God. I don't think that's wrong, I'm saying that's exactly what theists are doing. The only difference between you and them are the unprovable hypotheses you believe.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

It isn't a hypothesis to reject religion. A hypothesis is an explanation. I am merely rejecting an explanation on the grounds that this explanation conflicts with everything we know about the universe and the study of human nature tells us exactly why people would create such an explanation.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

No, you //are// making an assumption: that there is no God. And there is no evidence to support that. A lack of evidence to refute a hypothesis does not serve as evidence to support it, only to make it plausible. It's fine that you don't think there is, but there's no basis for you to be completely sure. The notion merely does not disprove scientific law entirely, it just places something else above it that some people feel is there because of either psychology or because there really is a god. It would redefine "law" (to be something that can only be defied by something holy under certain circumstances), not invalidate our scientific knowledge. And just because we've never seen something break scientific law doesn't mean that nothing can, just that people have never seen it happen, which would almost definitely be the case if God existed. It does not conflict with what we //know// about science, it conflicts with what we //assume// about science.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Your only argument is //still// that I can't disprove God. That alone does not make the existence of an omnipotent deity anywhere near plausible. Just because something can't be disproved doesn't make it plausible. Neither of us is going to concede here, so let's agree to disagree.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I don't think it's //unlikely//, because it doesn't feel like a random possibility picked out of a jar to me, whereas it does to you. To theists, it seems to be the likeliest because they think it's likely because it feels like the only non-scientific explanation possible, and that's subjective. Theists pick what, to you, may seem like something very random but seems likely to them because psychology pushes many to believe it (and most may think that may be by design). I'm not trying to make you think it's likely, I just want to explain why some other people find it extremely plausible to alleviate an apparent bias towards theists on your part.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

If it isn't a random possibility picked out of a jar, what is it? The only reason the idea of deities exists is because that's what makes sense to the human mind. If an idea has zero supporting evidence, as religion does, then it's random. I'm not sure what you mean in that last sentence, could you elaborate?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Sorry, my last sentence was ambiguous. I meant that I was trying to explain why some people think it isn't random, and I was trying to explain that to you in order to alleviate apparent bias on your part. The reason religion seems non-random to many people is because it's simple. The notion of a God (without any other aspects of religion attached) is what most people find to be the simplest possible explanation of the universe. It seems plausible because it seems so much more simple than the notion that matter has existed since the beginning of time, and the notion of something that can defy all scientific laws seems to be the most simple explanation of how matter could be created from scratch. The question of how God came to be is deterred by the notion of God being ever present, but many think that scientific laws are valid, but that they are not absolute, or else there is no origin of anything. The concept of a lack of origin is something many cannot accept and therefore feel that someone needed to create things. It all comes down to simplicity, and many theists believe the complications of the universe must have a simple explanation, I guess.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Ahh, but if lack of origin is the problem, religion solves nothing. Saying that the universe originated with God only creates the question of where God began. And so on and so on. It's impossible to answer that question fully. If God is able to be ever present, why not assume that the universe has that power, thus eliminating the need for a creator? Theists just don't think about it that way because it would be unpleasant. Yes, religion //seems// to not be random (to some), but that doesn't change the fact that it is. I don't know if you'd call it bias, but there is definitely something there. I don't pretend that religious explanations are serious contenders for the truth; I don't give religion credibility. In a conversation about how the universe came to be, I brush off anyone that seeks to explain it religiously. I don't call that bias, but I'm not sure what it would be.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Well I guess it makes more sense to many that there is an equalizer after life. Many believe that the universe is just behind its shrouds, and it conceals its fairness from us. People believe there is something more to life than science, and that life itself is a clear manifestation of divinity in some way. I partially believe that (though I accept that it may easily be just science). You're right about origins, though. I suppose many feel like there's temporary closure in us having no way of knowing the origin of the universe in life, as opposed to it being a constant mystery to pervade our thoughts. I'm kind of accepting now that if you don't see it for yourself, then you can't see how other people view it either. But I still may be wrong, and I've gained a lot from this myself (and I'm sure there's more to gain still). Even if I convince you of absolutely nothing, I'd still have learned from it.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I agree, this has been quite a fruitful conversation. You may be the most skilled debater I've encountered. You have an answer for everything, even when the viewpoints you're defending aren't your own.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Thanks, I've fluctuated in my belief many times, and I talk a lot to people about religion. I greatly appreciate your patience, and I completely understand and respect your final opinion. As someone who thinks differently from me, it would be just as difficult for you to adopt my view on it as it would be for me to adopt yours, and I admit that such an instinctual thought cannot be changed with ease. Thanks for sticking with this so long, I hope you gained as much as I did. Sorry for getting kind of impatient and mad at times, I fluctuated in tone a lot. I hope you don't think any less of theists in general, and I admit organized religion (though not always the case) can get out of hand, contradictory, and/or immoral.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I don't think less of anyone because of their beliefs. Like I said, I think certain beliefs show a lack of critical thinking, but that doesn't necessarily say anything about the believer as a person.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

So you don't think less of their general critical thinking skills overall?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Not based on their religious beliefs, no. I know plenty of people that are religious and are also great thinkers in other areas. My 9th grade biology teacher, for example. She believes in God, but she also has a good understanding of biology, a rather complex subject, and knows it well enough to teach it to me. She has a perfectly competent, probably above average, mind.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I recognize that, but are you refraining from judging their critical thinking skills (not overall intelligence) based on it?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

It really depends on the person and how they practice/hold their beliefs. For instance, a devout Catholic that I know recently joined the army. One of his Catholic friends told him to remember that he is a "warrior first for the Catholic church." Now, that guy is a moron and I have no intellectual respect for him or his alleged critical thinking skills.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Yeah, the way WBC practices religion, for example, completely justifies an assumption that they've little critical thinking skills (though brainwashing and a very delusional upbringing play a heavy role in their stance and stubbornness, enough to overshadow critical thinking in probably a lot of people if they were subjected to its influence). So not everyone, just mispractitioners of religion?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Exactly. I'm not sure how related this is, but I like to tell this story. My AP European History teacher is Catholic and his kids go to a Catholic school. He recently told my class that he doesn't let his kids watch Spongebob because "you lose brain cells" watching that show, it's not at all educational, etc. And my response was "your kids go to Catholic school, right?" He obviously isn't thinking very hard about his beliefs, on Spongebob //or// religion.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I'll admit, that's funny. And spongebob is hilarious enough to compensate for any lack of intellectual gain from it, in my opinion

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I agree. Spongebob is great. It's one of those shows that throws in jokes for the adults.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

"It's a //bun//, Patrick, it's //all// crust. How am I supposed to get the crust off a bun?" "//Peel it//."

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I was at an upvote until "If the first is true". Why does making us flawed make him a sadistic jerk? I for one believe that trials perfect the soul--the struggles we go through make us better people. I would rather struggle a lot and become better of my own accord that have been made in a world were I never improve or learn anything new. Life is a test, but it's also an experience. I believe we are here in order to 1) make the right choices, and 2) simply be able to make those choices. If you think about eternal life in paradise, nothing you will do will make a difference in how it plays out. This life, in my eyes, is a vacation of sorts: we get to experience love and pain, joy and sorrow. And I wouldn't have it any other way

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Making us flawed doesn't make Him a sadistic jerk. Making us flawed and then punishing us for being flawed makes him a sadistic jerk.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

He doesn't punish us for being flawed. It's all about forgiveness. Everybody is flawed so you're theory means that nobody could ever be on the good side of God. We are only punished for being flawed when we reject Christ's service for us, and therefore the ability to be forgiven of those trespasses.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

"We are only punished for being flawed when we reject Christ's service for us". What I get from that is that we're flawed and we're punished for it.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Well then you have interpretive troubles because that's the exact opposite of what I said

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I think where he's going is that part of who we are would cause us to reject faith, and since God made us all, then it would be him that made the part of us that makes us reject faith. Therefore, since he knows exactly what will come of us, and he made it that way, punishing //us// for turning out exactly as he made us is contradictory. That's what I perceived from this.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I think the difference comes with "he knows" vs. "he made it happen". The essential part of God's plan is agency. He doesn't cause or make anybody make any sort of choice. He is omnipotent and knows what ultimately will happen, but that doesn't mean it's by his power that it happens.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

But if He made us, then wouldn't He make us knowing exactly what would come of us? Therefore, wouldn't be of His power indirectly? He doesn't make people do something, but he makes people //who// do something.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

And?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

And I think that when our destiny is set in stone in the eyes of God, that makes us incapable of changing it. Therefore, the sins we commit are committed because God caused us to commit them by making us who we are.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

But you're not following a prophecy that you're told you must. You're doing what you would do. He just knows what's going to happen

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I see, that makes sense. So God is creating us, knowing how we'll turn out, but we're still held accountable because we're still fulfilling that expectation on our own free will?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

"We are only punished for being flawed when we reject Christ's service for us, and therefore the ability to be forgiven of those trespasses..." There's no interpretation there. What those words mean is that God made us flawed and now punishes us for it.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

If the end goal is perfection, why not make us perfect from the start? If you prefer it this way, why not just make you not prefer it this way? The idea of goals and working towards things and struggles is that things are out of our control. We are tested to show what we have learned. We learn because we don't already know. We don't already know because we can't simply will knowledge into existence. An almighty God would not be bound by these tethers. He would have no use for learning because He already knows everything. Here's the biggest deal-breaker when it comes to a maker with a plan. Things happen for a reason. Somewhere down the line, that reason is something we can't change. An almighty being, however, can change anything. Following that, there is no reason for anything. "God created man because X" Does not apply, because God can change X with no effort. Creating man is a step to changing a problem He doesn't have. There can be no steps to solve a problem that doesn't exist. A perfect being has no problems.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

The goal isn't perfection. What does it do or prove to be "perfect"? The goal is the journey itself. I think we should get off the train of whether or not there is an almighty God because there's nothing that either of us can say that the other can't refute and neither of us will change our minds, probably even in the slightest. I don't understand what you're saying here at all. You say that there can't be an maker with a plan because he can change that plan? So nothing means anything? I just don't follow that train of thought.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

The reason we can't refute religious arguments is that it boils down to faith. If someone's sole argument is "we aren't supposed to understand" or "I just believe", how the hell can I argue with that? Let's switch roles for a second. I believe that Patrick Swayze is responsible for the creation of the universe. Tell me why I'm wrong.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Because God did. It is about faith and it's not that we aren't meant to understand, it's that we aren't meant to know for sure. That's what the test of life is

by Anonymous 11 years ago

The point is, you have no way of proving him wrong. There is no evidence. There is no proof. The response "Because God did" is not proof of why he's wrong. It's proof to you and anybody sharing your beliefs, but not to any other. I think that was the point of the question; to prove that you can't prove to him, and he can't prove to you.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I understand the point. Our "argument", or rather belief, isn't that we can never understand the truth, but if we knew without a shadow of a doubt that the Christian God was real, that everything in the Bible was true, and that we will undoubtedly live on after death, then what point is there to life? Because we don't know for sure, life has a point: to believe in something bigger than this.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Well, what significance does that have in life? Do you believe that a person who acts kindly to others is any worse or less deserving for lacking faith? Why, when it was God that made us knowing we'd lack faith?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

To somebody that doesn't believe, then it has no value. To someone who does, that's all the significance we need in and of itself. I realize that people can possess a moral compass without being religious, and as a Mormon, my beliefs here (I think) answer that question better than the traditional Christian. We believe that there is an intercalary step in between this life and heaven. We believe that there is a waiting room if you will, where people who didn't believe, or weren't exposed to, the truth will be taught and given a final chance to accept it. Therefore, those people will have their chance. Only the people that actively choose to reject the gospel when they can't deny its truthfulness will be "punished for their flaws" God didn't make us predetermined to lack faith. He made us lack knowledge. Again, agency is the key. We choose whether or not to believe

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Even if it wasn't intended to be so, it's still predetermined because God knows it will happen, even if he had no intention for it to. If God knows we won't, then it isn't really a choice is it?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Well I know you're wrong because Patrick Swayze is the true creator. You may disagree, but we aren't meant to understand the ways of Patrick Swayze. That's the test. Our arguments are on equal ground. The only difference is that millions of people believe yours.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Dude, you have such selective interpretation. You only respond to what you think I might be saying, but in actuality, I said something completely unrelated. Read the comment again and respond if you wish

by Anonymous 11 years ago

"Because God did. It is about faith and it's not that we aren't meant to understand, it's that we aren't meant to know for sure. That's what the test of life is" So God designed us/things to ensure that we can never be certain of His existence, because that would eliminate the need for faith. Doesn't it kind of defeat the point when He talks to people, answers prayers, makes the sun stand still, things like that? If the whole point of human existence is a test of faith, why would God give us the capacity to reason? Reason stands in direct opposition to faith. Anyone who chooses to employ their God given ability to reason will come to the conclusion that there is no God.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Miracles are just that...miracles. I've never seen the sun stand still. I have seen medical cases that are resolved to doctors' confounding. I've seen checks come in the mail from some forgotten source just when we need it. And no kidding, I've even seen a man with skin cancer go under the water to be baptized, and when he came up, the cancer was gone. Not the next morning, or when he got home; he went down with it and came up without it. They serve as an increaser of faith, but still not a sure knowledge of anything. As for God talking to people and answering prayers, I've never had a prayer answered in words, but promptings and feelings. Increases faith. And even in the bible, God only spoke directly to prophets that had been set apart and given that power, not your everyday Joe. Next, you make a sweeping assumption that reason is the opposite of faith. First, I'd like to point out that your interpretation here essentially labels any religious person an unintelligent vegetable. That's 1) incorrect and ignorant, and 2) offensive and douchey. Many notable scientists have said that everything they learned through science strengthened their belief in a higher power.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

And your argument still doesn't make sense. You say that he can't have given us the ability to reason because it hurts the chances that we will be faithful. Let's pretend that that incredibly unthoughout assumption is correct. Would your teacher give you the answers for a test? No? Then why would God? The point of a test isn't to give everyone an A, it's to see what they're truly capable of. And unless we choose to accept God of our own free will, even though some sources tell us not to, then we pass

by Anonymous 11 years ago

What God wants you to do requires you to neglect your brain's abilities. I don't believe your cancer story, but if that did occur then there was a non-magical explanation for the cancer to go into remission. And if not, if God really did cure that man's cancer, why? Did he pray harder than the millions of other people, of all faiths, that died of cancer that year? Was he just that much better than them? Do you consider these promptings and feelings to be an act of God or just your body and mind? Because if they aren't the actions of God, then they're your body and mind's reactions to your faith, which frequently manifests psychologically/physically. And if you do think that's the case, shouldn't that be an indicator that God is in your head? The only answers you get to your prayers are thoughts and feelings produced by your own body and interpreted by your own brain. Reason //is// the opposite of faith. That's why when it comes down to it, the only argument for the validity of religious doctrine is faith. Because all the reasoning says that faith is...unreasonable.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

"Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing 'yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up must come down, down, down...Amen!' If they did, we'd think they were pretty insecure about it." -Dan Barker I think that sums it up very well. Another good quote is: "An atheist doesn't have to be someone who thinks they have a proof that there is no God. He just has to be someone who thinks the evidence on the God question is at a similar level to the evidence on the werewolf question." I don't recall who said that.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Why is there a goal at all? Goals are set //because// we have limitations. God has no limitations, so why is there a goal? There can't be a maker with a plan because plans are based upon goals, and goals are based upon limitations. This brings us back to "God has no limitations, so why is there a plan?" I'm not averse to a creator, just the creator as made up by organized religion. An all-powerful being that created the Universe for shits and giggles makes far more sense to me than an all-powerful being attempting to orchestrate some insanely complex plan to reach a goal He shouldn't even have in the first place.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

There isn't a goal for God. He doesn't have limitations. There is a goal for us. We do have limitations. We have limitations because he doesn't. That's the point. I also don't understand the whole issue with organized religion. I get the fact that back in the day the Church was corrupt and infiltrated by douchebags, but that doesn't mean just because there is a group that believes in the same thing that it's wrong.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

He has a plan, and therefore he has goals. These are not mutually exclusive. Plans are literally only an organized means of achieving a goal. Since he has goals, he has limitations. The problem with organized religion is that it is manipulable. People can declare God's will to be whatever they want, and hundreds of millions of people will blindly accept this as absolute truth. It's the best way to lie to people, and it's still firmly rooted in society because it's been around for so long. I can make something up right now, and it will be 100% as credible as any organized religion. The only difference is that the religion will have been around for longer.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

His plan and goals are for us to do right. The only way is infinite power could change that is if he removes agency from the equation and that defeats the purpose. See, people always say that churches and religious institutions will lie to people and they will blindly accept that. I for one, can't in any recess of my mind, find a reason that a church would lie to you unless it's for monetary gain. But seeing as most churches these days only accept donations anyway, I can't see it happening. Also, people can think. They don't blindly follow any institution. I've had concerns about things that I've heard from my church, yet the principles that they teach still align with my personal values.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I absolutely agree. Organized religions tend to make zero sense.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

No. God created humans that can make mistakes and screw up for a reason. He wants us to have to EARN our salvation. He doesn't want us to live life aimlessly. "'For I know the plans I have for you'", declares the Lord". (Jeremiah 29:11). These are GODS plans, not our own. We have free will and can make our own decisions, which may lead us to sin, but God wants us to have to choose between right and wrong. If you choose the path of righteousness, then you will be going along with God's plans.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

If that's the best system that God can come up with, I'm not impressed. Just as we have to earn salvation, God has to earn worship and adoration, and that doesn't cut it. I can earn salvation after a lifetime of evil by apologizing and accepting Jesus 30 seconds before I die. That's not much of an earning.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

God gave us life and that is the best gift ever and deserves our adoration. We worship him because he is the ultimate being and there is nothing higher. As for the apologizing and acceptance, we must TRULY be sorry and TRULY accept Christ, you can't just simply say it, God will know the difference in your heart.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

So if it were proved that God doesn't exist, would you fall to your knees in adoration and worship to...the president of the United States? The guy in control of America's nuclear arsenal is the next most powerful guy behind God. Your logic is to worship whoever has the most power. That's how dogs think about //us//.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Sorry to press, but if God made us, wouldn't he already know which path we'd chose?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

He doesn't know which path we'll take because its up to us. We can choose his plan which will lead is to salvation or we can choose our own, which may not and probably won't.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

That directly conflicts with the notion of God being all-knowing

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Click on our website: === ( http://www.fullmalls.com ) ===== ==== ( http://www.fullmalls.com ) ===== The website wholesale various fashion shoes, such as Nike, Jordan, prada, also includes the jeans, shirt, bags, hats and decoration. All these products are our free transport, prices are competitive, we can also accept paypal j, after the payment within short time, can ship. Air jordan(1-24)shoes $30 Handbags(Coach l v f e n d i d&g) $35 Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $15 Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30 Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,A r m a i n i) $15 New era cap $12 Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $20 accept paypal and free shipping === ( http://www.fullmalls.com ) ===== ==== ( http://www.fullmalls.com ) ===== ==== ( http://www.fullmalls.com ) ===== ==== ( http://www.fullmalls.com ) =====

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I can't believe this is still being questioned. I'm just going to agree to disagree with you, but let me make one thing clear: God made us flawless. He didn't turn us into replicas of Him. He MADE us without flaws. You know the whole serpent story with the Garden of Eden? THAT'S how we messed up. Satan used to be an Angel. We aren't mindless robots controlled by God, we still have minds of our own and choices to make. If we make the wrong ones, that's not on him for not making us "perfect", that's our fault. So if that's what you want to believe, by all means do it, and I know that you will. But Adam and Eve's mess up is a bit like your best friend convincing you to kill someone you hate. They influenced you, sure, but you were still in control. You didn't have to do it and nobody forced you.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

God knew we would mess up before He created us. And He went ahead and made us that way anyway. Therefore God is responsible for our flaws. If an architect creates a building with the knowledge that it will crumble under its own weight, you hold the architect responsible.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Just because something will be flawed doesn't mean it isn't worth making. The same argument could be made for parents. Everybody knows that people are flawed and parents know this too when they decide to have children, but they decide to have children anyway. While parents can raise their children right, they can't be held accountable for all of their children's flaws. A building isn't a very accurate analogy for humans either. With buildings, either it works or it doesn't, with humans, if we're flawed we can still accomplish things.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I didn't way we weren't worth making, I'm pointing out why the fact that we're flawed means God is flawed. The statements in my post still stand. The difference between parents and God is that parents aren't all powerful. Parents can't just choose to make their children perfect. God could have chosen to do that.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Obviously God doesn't know all. We're a game to him. He set everything in motion and that's it. I don't know what kind of god he is, I don't pray to him, I don't believe in some sort of afterlife, but I do think something had to design everything. I only believe that because it's easier for me to believe than everything being the product of chance. Religion is jut people's way to explain the unexplained. The sooner people accept that the better.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

That's the kind of religious belief that I don't mind. Purely practical. You don't presume to know what God likes and dislikes, what He wants us to do, none of that crap. I do have a comment though. Yes, you solve the mystery of the universe by believing that God designed it. But now the question is where did God come from? Did someone design Him? You've just taken the mystery away from the universe and transferred it to God.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I believe it's something super natural. I can't explain where my God came from and that's fine with me. I'm not really interested in finding out everything. Most of my faith is in science, but I think that right now God is the best explanation for the dead ends. My beliefs are fluid; when I find out more my beliefs will change. No matter how much you know, be it about science or some god you made up, you will always end up with the question "What comes before that?"

by Anonymous 11 years ago

God explains the dead ends, but then creates more. If you're comfortable with not knowing where God came from, why are you uncomfortable not knowing where the universe came from?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

There will always be people digging deeper to the truth. I'm not one of those people. I have reached my dead end and I am simply not concerned with finding out more. I can't give a reason for it other than it doesn't interest me. It's easier to assume that whatever created the universe was always there. As long as it's not hurting anything I see nothing wrong with taking the easy way out. Where do you stop searching for an explanation? Do you just ponder until you die? Or are you just not concerned with where we come from?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Ahh but if the creator (God or otherwise) has the power to just "be", why can't the universe just "be"? There's a quote about that which is really good, but I can't recall it exactly. I don't actually expect an answer to that, it was mostly rhetorical; just food for thought. I'm curious as to where we came from and why the universe is here, but I'm perfectly content to go without an explanation. I subscribe to the big bang theory and evolution, but there is, of course, the possibility that we're just as misinformed now as the people that were sure the earth was flat and orbited by the sun. I doubt it, because we employ the scientific method and they didn't, but the possibility still exists. If I were to find out tomorrow that all the scientists were wrong and we're back to square one, I wouldn't really care. Whatever the reason, I'm here, the world is here, and things are the way they are. What I know or what anyone else knows won't change anything, so it isn't a priority for me. These aren't the kinds of questions that I usually concern myself with. Questions of creation and existence are kind of on the back burner of my mind. What fascinate me are nature and human psychology.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I spend a lot of time pondering questions of psychology. Why do we behave the way we do? What unconscious motivators are present when we make decisions? I like to form hypotheses to answer my own questions and then test them. Or if it's something I can't test I just analyze it over a long period of time and see what conclusions I come up with.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Who says my God isn't the universe? (He is, BTW. It just makes most sense to me) I believe the Big Bang probably happened and I completely support evolution. I just add a god to the end to make it all make sense to me. Maybe it's a coping mechanism. Idk...

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Okay, here's my 2 cents. Go created angels to worship him. That's basically all they do, but there isn't satisfaction in a robot that tells you how great you are. So he created us, beings that have the option to choose to serve him or not. So when we worship him and follow him, its our choice, not something we must do.

by Anonymous 11 years ago