Just wondering, if aliens are ever discovered to be real, how does that fit in with christian doctrine? will the bible be retconned to include their existence?
I don't see how they're mutually exclusive. The Bible was written by and for earthlings. Again...I think we're asking too much of the Bible when we use it as a science text. I suppose it's all on perspective...but I think it's possible other civilizations on distant planets may know more about God than we do. Christ was for humanity...what if some other civilization from another planet had a similar encounter with God? That would be amazing!
Well it really depends on what one means by "atheist". There is the weak atheist and the strong atheist positions. I consider myself what is termed a "weak atheist" which is to say that I lack the belief in "God" but don't assert that "God"'s existence is impossible or that "God" absolutely doesn't exist. A "strong atheist" not only lacks the belief in "God" but also asserts that "God" absolutely does not exist but many atheists don't go that far. The basis for my lack of belief though is quite simple and that is that there is no basis for having a positive belief in the existence of "God". Without any basis, there is no reason to positively believe in the existence of "God" even though I don't deny that it is possible for "God" to exist.
Thanks for the response. So what do you consider a solid basis? (not just concerning God's existence) Science? Logic? Probabilities? Personal Revelation? Other? More than one?
A loose and paraphrased quote--if anyone could find the "official" quote that would be great. "The more I study the universe, the more I realize it was created" Albert Einstein
I often feel much the same way. When you think about physics or biology, I'm incredulous it could happen without a God. But, when I read the Bible, I can't believe there is one. I remain an atheist as a default position. I think it is quite possible there is a God, but I don't know much about what his nature would be if he existed. I don't bother with any agnosticism because I don't think waffling gets you anywhere. There is no promise of anything in an agnostic position or even deism -- it'd be the same as no God at all. It does make sense to be a Christian or Muslim or some thing of that sort since you at least have an eternal life awaiting you. But, since I can't go the full measure, I stay at the base line. And, btw, I have read the bible cover-to-cover. But, I don't know wha NASA readings you're referring to.
Well I think that for me (and for many others) the strength of the evidence and/or strength of the logic/reasoning behind a proposition would cause a proportionate level of strength in the belief in that proposition. It's not really a matter of belief or non-belief but a spectrum ranging from total belief to total disbelief. As for the proposition of "God" existing, without denying the possibility that "God" exists, IMHO, the sum total of all "evidence" and "argument" for his existence that I have seen so far is such that I tend towards mostly if not total disbelief in this proposition.
I understand this feeling. However, the problem with this is that if one were to believe in God based on this logic, then how does one explain the existence of God in the first place (before there was a universe?) You start from the argument that the universe is so complex that it needed to have a "designer". Okay fine. But then this designer would have to be orders and orders of magnitude more complex than the universe. So then one would logically have to ask, wow, such a "God" would need to be such an incredible being, how did this "God" come to exist itself? Using the same logic to explain the need for "God's" existence, wouldn't "God" need some "pre-God" of equal or even more complexity to give rise to "God" and ad infinatum? Of course, the answer some give is that "God" simply "IS" and existed for all time and was never created in the first place. But then why does this make more sense than to hold the same attitude about the the universe (that it simply IS and all its complexity has existed for all time)?
I can appreciate that point, except for this: we have to accept something as the First Cause. The definition of God is well-suited to taking this role; he can be timeless, omnipotent, sentient, omniscient, and -- perhaps most important -- meaningful. The universe is less suited to it because it is without agency and, therefore, without meaning. That isn't a proof of any sort -- and obviously it hasn't even done the trick for me -- but I think it makes a stronger case for God than it does for atheism.
The fact that the majority of people in this world support their religion mostly because they were raised and conditioned to follow their religion is a major reason why I refuse to choose a specific religion to follow. I know that some people are raised in a certain environment, and actually study up on other religions and follow the religion that makes sense for them. Most people still tend to just follow the religion they were forced to follow when they were kids, and then they'll turn around and force their children to follow the same religion... Fatty, It's kind of disingenuous for a person to follow x religion just because they could have something to gain from it, while not having anything to gain from being an atheist in your opinion. I'd think that this higher being would be able to figure out the true believers from the "gambling" believers... rimmy, I've never heard the term "apatheist" before, that's an interesting term... I try not to get too involved in religion except on the most basic of levels. I think there's a higher being out there, I have no clue who or what it is, what needs to be done to appease him/her/it, or even if it cares about what goes on down here. All I care about is living a good life in which I don't hurt others in an intentional manner. I think worrying about the now is a much better outlook than what will happen when I die...at least in my case...
I can't take credit for it since it came from an article I read. The writer basically described it as a person who does not care one way or the other about his/her own religion or that of others others (ie - not trying to convert anyone). Just apathetic about belief. gootan, My conclusion is not one of logic or science - it is philosophical in that I would rather not support the paramaters invovled wtih religion and God-worship. Again, I don't care if there is a God - and if I am wrong and am punished, then that would further make me feel justified in my belief because I do not want to play by rules I find to be wrong. Besides, far greater people than I would have already met such a fate.
I don't know how to really answer that question. I imagine if I were raised and conditioned to be an atheist, I would be an atheist. I would like to think I would get to a point where I would think about other options though...and perhaps I'd be where I am now. In the end, I don't really know what I'd do if I were conditioned to follow a certain belief. My parents never forced anything on me when it came to religion. There was a time when they went to church on Sundays and left me behind because I didn't want to go and I also had an Oilers game to watch...
A little off topic: Respecting other's belief is very different from saying, "Whatever you believe is fine." In fact, the latter is almost the opposite of the former. If I tell you whatever you believe is fine, that means I don't really take whatever you believe seriously, and I don't really care about you. That, to me, is the opposite of respect. Many non-religious people misinterpret religious people's zeal to "convert" as disrespectful. It's really the opposite.
Your parents were conditioning you to believe that going to church was not really that important. In fact, it's impossible for any parents NOT to condition their children one way or the other. BTW, I'd choose an Oilers game over going to church too. But in hindsight, you'd get fewer heartbreaks going to church.
i believe that we are all in the matrix thats ruled by an intangible presence called simply "the force".
When I tell my friends and family that whatever they believe is fine with me, it means that I respect them enough to believe that they are able to make they right choices for their lives. It means that I care about them so much, I'm willing to support them in the choices they make for themselves, even if those choices are different from mine. The only people who have actually tried to convert me are absolute strangers -- people who approach me in public or come to my front door. So if these "well-intentioned" souls haven't got the first idea about who I am or what I believe, how is it "respectful" for them to try and tell me their way is best for me? How could they possibly know? After an encounter like that, I always feel as if I've been locked in a room with a used-car salesman who is desperately trying to make his quota for the day. I still believe the best method for winning converts is to live a good life. If I get to know someone and they show that they are genuinely happy, caring, compassionate and spiritual, chances are I'll listen with an open mind to what they have to say about their religion. But when I'm accosted on the street by a stranger who tells me his way is the only way, I tune him out almost instantly.
I agree, except for one major thing. I think we existed long before our conception. We do not come from nothing, for nothing does. We are just a continuation. And we will continue after are so called "death". That is why we are eternal, because there really is no birth or death, just change. We have to let go of the notion that we are some separate identity from the universe and "god".
