Religion

Being that I lived in the South most of my life. The "Bible Belt", if you will. It's forced me to either question the idea of a God or embrace Him entirely. Well ... I chose the former. I still don't know quite what I believe, but I am searching. I'm not defined by any religion or belief. I think the only thing I can believe in right now is mankind and whether or not it's truly an entity of good.

I have a lot of life to live, so I'll get back to you on the whole concept later.

😉
I live in the south too. There are some things I question, cuz things like "he makes lifelong plans for everyone at the moment of conception" but he also knows what will happen in someone's life, so if he made plans for this person to be the US president but the person died at the age of four in a car crash, isnt something messed up here?But i still believe in two things: God and him coming down to earth as jesus as a sacrifice.
 
I wasn't raised in a religous household. My parents decided early on that they weren't going to raise my sister and I with any sort of religion - they figured they would let us find our own path, when we got old enough.

I've been interested in the occult my whole life - magick, spirits, astrology, all that kind of stuff. I started doing a lot of research when I was in elementary school about paganism, and Earth-based religions like Wicca. Wicca was the one that called out to me the most, so I've been studying the religion ever since.

I've done research on a lot of other religions over the course of many years, and I haven't found anything that struck me as much as Wicca did. I find merits in all religions, but Wicca is the one that's meant for me.

...there's that.
 
D
*Darla Masters*
Hear Hear!!!
The protestant church you talk about BEG is the anglican church, which i feel the foundations which it is based on are also aborrant.Not honouring Christ at all.
i want to know what you mean by 'aborrant' i'm protestant, and while i don't truly 'practice' that religion, it's still what i am. and when you're from my part of the world 'what you are' is pretty damn important.

i thought the purpose of this thread was to discuss our own personal religions, not slam everyone who doesn't have the same religion we do.
 
Lyri what i meant was the shallow reasons for Henry the 8th founding the anglican church was aborrant maybe i used too strong a word, i was just saying i didn't agree with those reasons.I wasn't slating Protestantism or the church at all just the reasons it was founded.sorry if i offended you.
 
i agree that maybe the reasons for creating the Potastanism weren't the best in the world, but it's still a recognized religion all over the world.
it's hard to explian why it's important to me...i'm from Northern Ireland, and while i don't practise the religion by going to church or whatever, being a Protestant is still very important to me and the rest of my family.

thank you for what you said, Angel's Vision. maybe i took it a little out of context! 😀
 
I'm muslim and I have certain things that I totally believe in maybe you should start reading about other religions before you form an opinion and before you start believing in it! i hope I helped
 
Huh. Anyone catch this piece?

I've found God, says man who cracked the genome

Steven Swinford

THE scientist who led the team that cracked the human genome is to publish a book explaining why he now believes in the existence of God and is convinced that miracles are real.

Francis Collins, the director of the US National Human Genome Research Institute, claims there is a rational basis for a creator and that scientific discoveries bring man "closer to God".

His book, The Language of God, to be published in September, will reopen the age-old debate about the relationship between science and faith. "One of the great tragedies of our time is this impression that has been created that science and religion have to be at war," said Collins, 56.

"I don't see that as necessary at all and I think it is deeply disappointing that the shrill voices that occupy the extremes of this spectrum have dominated the stage for the past 20 years."

For Collins, unravelling the human genome did not create a conflict in his mind. Instead, it allowed him to "glimpse at the workings of God".

"When you make a breakthrough it is a moment of scientific exhilaration because you have been on this search and seem to have found it," he said. "But it is also a moment where I at least feel closeness to the creator in the sense of having now perceived something that no human knew before but God knew all along.

"When you have for the first time in front of you this 3.1 billion-letter instruction book that conveys all kinds of information and all kinds of mystery about humankind, you can't survey that going through page after page without a sense of awe. I can't help but look at those pages and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind."

Collins joins a line of scientists whose research deepened their belief in God. Isaac Newton, whose discovery of the laws of gravity reshaped our understanding of the universe, said: "This most beautiful system could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful being."

Although Einstein revolutionised our thinking about time, gravity and the conversion of matter to energy, he believed the universe had a creator. "I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details," he said. However Galileo was famously questioned by the inquisition and put on trial in 1633 for the "heresy" of claiming that the earth moved around the sun.

Among Collins's most controversial beliefs is that of "theistic evolution", which claims natural selection is the tool that God chose to create man. In his version of the theory, he argues that man will not evolve further.

"I see God's hand at work through the mechanism of evolution. If God chose to create human beings in his image and decided that the mechanism of evolution was an elegant way to accomplish that goal, who are we to say that is not the way," he says.

"Scientifically, the forces of evolution by natural selection have been profoundly affected for humankind by the changes in culture and environment and the expansion of the human species to 6 billion members. So what you see is pretty much what you get."

Collins was an atheist until the age of 27, when as a young doctor he was impressed by the strength that faith gave to some of his most critical patients.

"They had terrible diseases from which they were probably not going to escape, and yet instead of railing at God they seemed to lean on their faith as a source of great comfort and reassurance," he said. "That was interesting, puzzling and unsettling."

He decided to visit a Methodist minister and was given a copy of C S Lewis's Mere Christianity, which argues that God is a rational possibility. The book transformed his life. "It was an argument I was not prepared to hear," he said. "I was very happy with the idea that God didn't exist, and had no interest in me. And yet at the same time, I could not turn away."

His epiphany came when he went hiking through the Cascade Mountains in Washington state. He said: "It was a beautiful afternoon and suddenly the remarkable beauty of creation around me was so overwhelming, I felt, "˜I cannot resist this another moment'."

Collins believes that science cannot be used to refute the existence of God because it is confined to the "natural" world. In this light he believes miracles are a real possibility. "If one is willing to accept the existence of God or some supernatural force outside nature then it is not a logical problem to admit that, occasionally, a upernatural force might stage an invasion," he says.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2220484,00.html
 
That I really don't understand, how can both science and religion work together when they contradict each other? Like the very different opinions of how man came to be, and how old the world is?!?
 
C
CrazyMary
i totally agree with you
R
Randy Giles
Religion and science don't have to contradict. And just because something is scientific "theory" does NOT make it true. Nor does everything in the Bible have to be taken literally.
I think it depends on how you define "religion". There are very specific, literal interpretations of the Bible for instance that would directly contradict scientific theory. But some of these scientists have a very vague, generalized interpretation of "God" as just something like a first cause, a force or intelligence or whatever that set the universe in motion. They don't see it as a logical contradiction I guess.

I think what that human genome scientist is responding to is literally information. DNA is a code, apparently. So, I guess it's information. Can information actually come into existence without an intelligence creating it? I can't even fully wrap my brain around this question, really. But I guess that's part of the philosophical debate about the existence of a "creator".

Q: How do you define information?

A: The dictionary definition (computer science case in particular) will suffice: "Processed, stored or transmitted data."

From Wikipedia:

Information is a message, something to be communicated from the sender to the receiver, as opposed to noise, which is something that inhibits the flow of communication or creates misunderstanding. If information is viewed merely as a message, it does not have to be accurate. It may be a lie, or just a sound of a kiss. This model assumes a sender and a receiver, and does not attach any significance to the idea that information is something that can be extracted from an environment, e.g., through observation or measurement. Information in this sense is simply any message the sender chooses to create.

This view assumes neither accuracy nor directly communicating parties, but instead assumes a separation between an object and its representation, as well as the involvement of someone capable of understanding this relationship. This view seems therefore to require a conscious mind.

information is dependent upon, but usually unrelated to and separate from, the medium or media used to express it. In other words, the position of a theoretical series of bits, or even the output once interpreted by a computer or similar device, is unimportant, except when someone or something is present to interpret the information. Therefore, a quantity of information is totally distinct from its medium.

What's important here is 1) information always involves a sender and a receiver; 2) an encoding / decoding mechanism; 3) a convention of symbols ("code") which represent something distinct from what those symbols are made of. A paragraph in a newspaper is made of ink and paper, but the sentence itself may say nothing about ink or paper.

It may be very helpful here to point out the difference between a pattern and a code. Patterns (snowflakes, crystals, hurricanes, tornados, rivers, coastlines) occur in nature all the time.

A code is "A system of signals used to represent letters or numbers in transmitting messages." Examples of code include English, Chinese, computer languages, music, mating calls and radio signals. Codes always involve a system of symbols that represent ideas or plans.

All codes contain patterns, but not all patterns contain codes. Naturally occurring patterns do not contain code...


...The following quotes are from atheist Richard Dawkins' book The Blind Watchmaker:

"Every single one of more than a trillion cells in the body contains about a thousand times as much precisely-coded digital information as my entire computer.

"Each nucleus, as we shall see in Chapter 5, contains a digitally coded database larger, in information content, than all 30 volumes of the Encyclopaedia Britannica put together. And this figure is for each cell, not all the cells of a body put together."

Having quoted Dawkins here, it's interesting to note that neither he, nor any materialist has ever provided any scientific (i.e. empirical, testable, falsifiable) explanation for the origin of information.

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/infotheoryqa.htm
 
I wonder sometimes if "unified field theory" is an example of scientists looking for God.

In physics, unified field theory is an attempt to unify all the fundamental forces and the interactions between elementary particles into a single theoretical framework. The term was coined by Einstein who attempted to reconcile the general theory of relativity with electromagnetism in a single field theory. His quest proved elusive and a unified field theory, sometimes grandiosely referred to as the Theory of Everything (TOE, for short), has remained the holy grail for physicists, the long-sought theory which would explain the nature and behavior of all matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_field_theory
 
Back
Top Bottom