Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

B.B.S

Why do you believe in God?

113 posts in this topic

i am a theist

the number one thing (right now) that bugs me about christians is this idiotic fear of science, propping it up as some sort of bogeyman antithetical to theism. there are plenty of legitimate synthesis between faith and science, but sadly it seems the establishment would prefer to divide

There is a compatibility only in that religion is able to be rewritten and changed according to the new truths that science makes us aware of. Were there true synthesis, there would be a scenario where science adapted or benefited to a new discovery that religion brought us. Can you think of a time when that happened?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Working as a Paramedic I witnessed things that don't make sense any other way. Perhaps for me it is deeper than just faith, I believe I do know there's a God and that Jesus was his Son on Earth. I do believe that the only way to Heaven is thru Jesus and God.

As for my belief that Christianity is the one "correct" religion I've done a lot of homework, per se, and have come to that conclussion. If you can, check out the movie A Case for Christ, it's very revealing IMO, then read Heaven is for Real.

You're welcome to your own opinion and I'm not one to try to force my beliefs on others, but personal experience has left me with a clear and unwavering belief in Jesus.

Lee Strobel (a case for Christ) is one of the worst apologist out there. His arguments are flimsy and he continues to use "facts" that even Christians admit has been proven incorrect.

If you want someone to become a Christian then you should be recommending William Lane Craig. I don't agree with Craig but he makes a MUCH better case, his arguments are much more sound and he does a better job defending them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I can't go to heaven now unless I'm a Christian? Fark!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

doesn't seem fair to me that I cant ask a few questions w/o being damned for eternity....

You can question

Heck Jacob wrestled God/angel...that's a great symbol for questioning/wrestling withe the idea

I question things all the time yet still believe.

Question everything

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not believe in God?

Contrary to popular belief it doesn't require an abandonment of reason. It doesn't require acceptance of any specific dogma or "holy" text. So why not?

I believe in aliens too. I can no more prove the existence in a race of creatures that live on another planet than I can God, but no one ridicules me for believing in aliens.

People need to stop confusing belief in God with religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a compatibility only in that religion is able to be rewritten and changed according to the new truths that science makes us aware of. Were there true synthesis, there would be a scenario where science adapted or benefited to a new discovery that religion brought us. Can you think of a time when that happened?

One might argue the early Christian naturalists, but they were still practicing science just for the glory of God or what not. By your definition, I'm not sure there was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not believe in God?

Contrary to popular belief it doesn't require an abandonment of reason. It doesn't require acceptance of any specific dogma or "holy" text. So why not?

I believe in aliens too. I can no more prove the existence in a race of creatures that live on another planet than I can God, but no one ridicules me for believing in aliens.

People need to stop confusing belief in God with religion.

There is proof of concept of life. We exist, we are on a planet, we are alive, and we have traveled into space. That is why belief in alien life isn't ridiculed, because we are life and therefor we are conclusive proof that it happens.

There is no such proof of concept for a god.

"Why not?" is an extraordinarily flimsy argument for believing in something. It's completely anti-intellectual, especially when the "Why?" hasn't been answered yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a compatibility only in that religion is able to be rewritten and changed according to the new truths that science makes us aware of. Were there true synthesis, there would be a scenario where science adapted or benefited to a new discovery that religion brought us. Can you think of a time when that happened?

i agree with you.

establishment christians filter new information (read: science) through the lens of what they already believe, rather than using that new data to continually re-think their views. there's this mistaken idea that "the bible will be proven wrong" if big bad science is accepted, whereas the truth of it is that "MY interpretation of the bible will be proven wrong." therein lies the motivation. think of how many commonly-held biblical tenets could be called into question.

what irks me is that these people insist on dividing the realm of knowledge into fact-based versus faith-based. isn't something based on faith first based on facts that give you a reason to have faith in the first place? moreover, if the bible is as transcendent and immune to the ages as claimed, why not test it out? why not be willing to ask questions and to explore and to reconsider one's theological position?

did god not endow us with a sense of reason and intellect? could he have possibly intended us to forgo its use?

we've seen this sort of thing before, btw... the church was not very pleased with the scientific discovery that showed the earth as revolving around the sun. medieval theologians went apeshit because it destroyed one of the foundations of their faith. hundreds of years later it's no biggie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and by synthesis i don't mean both of them agreeing with one another in some holistic march towards a grand unification or anything, i mean that a basically static religious paradigm is perfectly compatible with an empirical scientific one (as far as the theists go, anyway; reciprocation by an atheist would not be equally as viable for obvious reasons.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites