• 138 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Edited 8 months, 13 days ago

Poll: What Religion do you believe in? (91 votes)

Christianity 47%
Judaism 0%
Atheist 20%
Agnostic 10%
Buddhism 2%
Islam 3%
Hinduism 2%
Sikhism 0%
Scientology 3%
Other ( Tell Us Your Religion ) 12%
#51 Posted by joshmightbe (24463 posts) - - Show Bio

@awesam said:

@dccomicsrule2011 said:

Deist.

There is a God or supreme deity that created the universe. But said God does not interfere or may not even be aware their is a universe.

Then, what's the point of its existence and/or believing in one?

Who says there's a point at all?

#52 Edited by InnerVenom123 (29499 posts) - - Show Bio

1. Atheism isn't a religion.

Christianity isn't a religion. It is a relationship.

2. Stop. Just stop.

#53 Posted by Cable_Extreme (8086 posts) - - Show Bio

@awesam said:

@dccomicsrule2011 said:

Deist.

There is a God or supreme deity that created the universe. But said God does not interfere or may not even be aware their is a universe.

Then, what's the point of its existence and/or believing in one?

I think a small part of me can't let go of the fact that there is no God. I was formerly a Christian before, maybe that's why.

Also their is really nothing wrong with believing in this kind of God since it's really no faith or all that jazz involved. I don't have to pay 10% of everything I make or any of that stuff. It's something I believe and it really can't be proven or disproved.

Call my line of reasoning fallacious, flawed or erroneous if you want, but that just how I feel at this point of my life.

I have had a similar experience, though deism for me, was just a transition to agnosticism. To be honest, I feel absolutely the same right now as I did when I was a Deist. There is no reason you have to reduce your belief in a possible creator as an explanation of the universe. Philosophical beliefs like deism does not claim knowledge, it is merely a gut feeling to an unanswerable question, and most diest I know would change their belief in a second if more information came along. Deism is a very respectable view to hold.

#54 Edited by Cable_Extreme (8086 posts) - - Show Bio

@extremis said:

@cable_extreme: people can believe what they want. But just because people "honestly" believed something thousands of years ago and made a religion (or even more recently with Scientology) doesn't make it true. They're all equally "likely" possibilities in that they're all equally unlikely considering all we now know.

My point is someone bashing one specific religion for reasons already mentioned is hypocritical. They're all silly.

And as for a theory "coming along" we already have a pretty great one to explain things, it's called the Big Bang.

The big bang is our best explanation of how our universe started. It is in no way absolute, and it can change if more information comes along. And religions might be silly for you, but that is completely relative to you personally. I have friends that think I am silly for being an agnostic atheist. The person initially started with the argument that religions were not started with honest origins. I did not agree with that since being honest is a relative view since we cannot determine who is being honest or lying when the questions asked about the universe are ultimately unanswerable.

#56 Posted by King Saturn (223723 posts) - - Show Bio

Christianity isn't a religion. It is a relationship.

Nope, it's a Religion.

Christianity has every component that would make it a Religion.

#57 Posted by JediXMan (29286 posts) - - Show Bio

Non-Denominational Christian.

#58 Posted by War Killer (19865 posts) - - Show Bio

I'm a Jesus freak.

#59 Edited by Extremis (3326 posts) - - Show Bio

@cable_extreme said:

@extremis said:

@cable_extreme: people can believe what they want. But just because people "honestly" believed something thousands of years ago and made a religion (or even more recently with Scientology) doesn't make it true. They're all equally "likely" possibilities in that they're all equally unlikely considering all we now know.

My point is someone bashing one specific religion for reasons already mentioned is hypocritical. They're all silly.

And as for a theory "coming along" we already have a pretty great one to explain things, it's called the Big Bang.

The big bang is our best explanation of how our universe started. It is in no way absolute, and it can change if more information comes along.

No one is saying it's absolute here, but you sound like you're expecting more information to come along. Maybe you know something the rest of us don't?

And religions might be silly for you, but that is completely relative to you personally.

I'm an anti-theist so yeah it is silly to me as a concept. Also it's not just relevant to me, it's relevant to everyone as religion is an unnecessary harm to society.

I have friends that think I am silly for being an agnostic atheist. The person initially started with the argument that religions were not started with honest origins. I did not agree with that since being honest is a relative view since we cannot determine who is being honest or lying when the questions asked about the universe are ultimately unanswerable.

Agnosticism is a broad term. I say I'm an atheist but I'm technically an "agnostic" as well in the way that I can't prove there is no God, nor do I claim we can with what we know. But there really is quite a different distinction amongst agnostics. There seems to be a significant amount who think "well since we can't prove there's no God, there's a good chance he still exists" and/or give credence to there being a God simply because it hasn't been disproven. I resent those sentiments. I'll explain why:

Could God exist? I suppose. But is it even likely enough for me to act/live my life in such a way that it is true? No, not at all. I don't give any credence to such an opinion because there has been absolutely no reason to believe it to be true...ever.

So even just from a practical standpoint it's not worth it to even entertain that solution. If you are going to entertain that as a possibility, then you have to consider every other ridiculous possibility that's just as likely from a probability standpoint. Richard Dawkins' Spaghetti Monster analogy comes to mind lol. So once you realize you've started entertaining such nonsense, it behooves you to discredit anyone who would give credence to it.

You seem like you entertain the concept of God, or there being an alternative to the Big Bang, as some likely possibility and that's why I disagree with you. Here's a Richard Dawkins clip to explain my point about the broad range of difference between agnostics, also because Dawkins could say it way better than me:

#60 Edited by Cable_Extreme (8086 posts) - - Show Bio

@extremis:

No one is saying it's absolute here, but you sound like you're expecting more information to come along. Maybe you know something the rest of us don't?

I do think more info will come along based on past examples.

I'm an anti-theist so yeah it is silly to me as a concept. Also it's not just relevant to me, it's relevant to everyone as religion is an unnecessary harm to society.

I think you are not understanding my point, your personal belief that religion is silly is relative. I also agree with you on that, however there are a lot of people out there that disagree with your statement. You are also lumping all religion together, Buddhism is not a harm to society, Christianity (church wise) can be a big harm, but the religion itself has so many fluctuations on religious people. I know some very liberal christians and very republican non religious people ect.... it is not religion itself, it is how people interpret their religion that can be bad.

Agnosticism is a broad term. I say I'm an atheist but I'm technically an "agnostic" as well in the way that I can't prove there is no God, nor do I claim we can with what we know. But there really is quite a different distinction amongst agnostics. There seems to be a significant amount who think "well since we can't prove there's no God, there's a good chance he still exists" and/or give credence to there being a God simply because it hasn't been disproven. I resent those sentiments. I'll explain why:

Agnosticism is quite broad, that is correct. Notice i spent the time to say "technically an atheist". The reason I self define myself as agnostic is taking on the label Atheist, people often accert so much about your beliefs. And it is currently a non formal, but understanded label.

Could God exist? I suppose. But is it even likely enough for me to act/live my life in such a way that it is true? No, not at all. I don't give any credence to such an opinion because there has been absolutely no reason to believe it to be true...ever.

Well, gut feeling? That is why I use to be a deist.You do not need proof to believe something, belief changes quite easily when proof comes along. When more info come along, belief changes into knowledge. Belief in some explanation to an unanswerable question is not a bad thing at all. If someone, beliefs that some sort of higher being created the universe, then so be it, it is only bad when they assert that it happened without proof. Claiming knowledge without evidence is when it can become harmful.

So even just from a practical standpoint it's not worth it to even entertain that solution. If you are going to entertain that as a possibility, then you have to consider every other ridiculous possibility that's just as likely from a probability standpoint. Richard Dawkins' Spaghetti Monster analogy comes to mind lol. So once you realize you've started entertaining such nonsense, it behooves you to discredit anyone who would give credence to it.

I am well aware of Richard Dawkins arguments, I was a christopher hitchens type atheist that was an anti-theist. I went around criticizing religion ect... But I personally realized that the true answer to the unknown is infact currently unknowable, why should I tell people they are wrong when we have no idea whether they are or not. The likelihood of them being right is infinitesimally small, but still a possibility.

You seem like you entertain the concept of God, or there being an alternative to the Big Bang, as some likely possibility and that's why I disagree with you. Here's a Richard Dawkins clip to explain my point about the broad range of difference between agnostics, also because Dawkins could say it way better than me:

There is always a possibility that what we know about reality can change drastically, especially if it is trying to explain something that happened billions of years ago. I have seen this video a dozen times :D

#61 Edited by WillPayton (9043 posts) - - Show Bio

I am well aware of Richard Dawkins arguments, I was a christopher hitchens type atheist that was an anti-theist. I went around criticizing religion ect... But I personally realized that the true answer to the unknown is infact currently unknowable, why should I tell people they are wrong when we have no idea whether they are or not. The likelihood of them being right is infinitesimally small, but still a possibility.

Sorry to jump into this uninvited, but I wanted to suggest that it depends on 1) the degree of "wrongness" of what the person said, and also 2) the implications of that person holding and propagating that view.

For example, a person on their deathbed might say that they believe they will soon go to Heaven. I'd agree, why challenge them on it? But, a person might say that they believe that if they close their eyes and walk out into traffic, God will help them across and they will not be harmed. Should you stay silent then? Isnt it your moral responsibility to point out to them that they are wrong? Isnt it your moral responsibility to stop them from taking action based on their "belief" if you're convinced that they will be putting themselves and others into serious danger based on those beliefs?

So, saying that "everyone is allowed to their beliefs without being challenged" sounds well and noble, but it's not true in all cases. Sometimes those people really are delusional or insane, and we should treat them as such. When we dont... bad things tend to happen. Children die because their parent refuse to take them to the doctor. People kill themselves because they believe their soul will go up to that spaceship that's travelling with the Hale-Bopp comet.

#62 Edited by Cable_Extreme (8086 posts) - - Show Bio

@cable_extreme said:

I am well aware of Richard Dawkins arguments, I was a christopher hitchens type atheist that was an anti-theist. I went around criticizing religion ect... But I personally realized that the true answer to the unknown is infact currently unknowable, why should I tell people they are wrong when we have no idea whether they are or not. The likelihood of them being right is infinitesimally small, but still a possibility.

Sorry to jump into this uninvited, but I wanted to suggest that it depends on 1) the degree of "wrongness" of what the person said, and also 2) the implications of that person holding and propagating that view.

For example, a person on their deathbed might say that they believe they will soon go to Heaven. I'd agree, why challenge them on it? But, a person might say that they believe that if they close their eyes and walk out into traffic, God will help them across and they will not be harmed. Should you stay silent then? Isnt it your moral responsibility to point out to them that they are wrong? Isnt it your moral responsibility to stop them from taking action based on their "belief" if you're convinced that they will be putting themselves and others into serious danger based on those beliefs?

So, saying that "everyone is allowed to their beliefs without being challenged" sounds well and noble, but it's not true in all cases. Sometimes those people really are delusional or insane, and we should treat them as such. When we dont... bad things tend to happen. Children die because their parent refuse to take them to the doctor. People kill themselves because they believe their soul will go up to that spaceship that's travelling with the Hale-Bopp comet.

That is assuming that their belief is wrong. How would we know their highly unlikely deity won't save them? I personally would only stop them to protect the lives of the people driving, because I personally would think that they would get hit. But what I am actually referring to is not taking action on a belief, I am talking about a belief in general. I think everyone is permitted to believe without being challenged, but they are not necessarily permitted to take actions on those beliefs if they pose a threat to someone else.

#63 Posted by XLR87T3 (2206 posts) - - Show Bio

What about Bootyism?

#64 Edited by Extremis (3326 posts) - - Show Bio

@cable_extreme said:

@extremis:

No one is saying it's absolute here, but you sound like you're expecting more information to come along. Maybe you know something the rest of us don't?

I do think more info will come along based on past examples.

Yes but not based on any current evidence. You are "believing" it will happen. That is fine, but distinguish it as such.

I'm an anti-theist so yeah it is silly to me as a concept. Also it's not just relevant to me, it's relevant to everyone as religion is an unnecessary harm to society.

I think you are not understanding my point, your personal belief that religion is silly is relative. I also agree with you on that, however there are a lot of people out there that disagree with your statement. You are also lumping all religion together, Buddhism is not a harm to society, Christianity (church wise) can be a big harm, but the religion itself has so many fluctuations on religious people. I know some very liberal christians and very republican non religious people ect.... it is not religion itself, it is how people interpret their religion that can be bad.

No I mean all religion. It is all harmful in different ways. Some worse than others, but it should be eradicated. If you're familiar with Christopher Hitchens then you should be familiar with some of the problems with Buddhism.

And Liberal interpretation or not, all religions demean human integrity in some sense. Almost all of them offer up this idea that humans true place lie in subjugation, subservient to some "higher" being or cause. It was a decent morality system a very long time ago that somehow was never thrown, rightfully, to the curb. Society has outgrown religion and it's really only a matter of time before it is surgically removed from society at large. Look at the state of religion now, it has become a cherry picking fest of which values and principles to keep and which are deemed wrong (all of a sudden). the reality is that this is indicative of religion's stuggling attempt to keep up with our new socially determined morality system.

It will die out eventually and I only hope I can see it happen.

Agnosticism is a broad term. I say I'm an atheist but I'm technically an "agnostic" as well in the way that I can't prove there is no God, nor do I claim we can with what we know. But there really is quite a different distinction amongst agnostics. There seems to be a significant amount who think "well since we can't prove there's no God, there's a good chance he still exists" and/or give credence to there being a God simply because it hasn't been disproven. I resent those sentiments. I'll explain why:

Agnosticism is quite broad, that is correct. Notice i spent the time to say "technically an atheist". The reason I self define myself as agnostic is taking on the label Atheist, people often accert so much about your beliefs. And it is currently a non formal, but understanded label.

Could God exist? I suppose. But is it even likely enough for me to act/live my life in such a way that it is true? No, not at all. I don't give any credence to such an opinion because there has been absolutely no reason to believe it to be true...ever.

Well, gut feeling? That is why I use to be a deist.You do not need proof to believe something, belief changes quite easily when proof comes along. When more info come along, belief changes into knowledge. Belief in some explanation to an unanswerable question is not a bad thing at all. If someone, beliefs that some sort of higher being created the universe, then so be it, it is only bad when they assert that it happened without proof. Claiming knowledge without evidence is when it can become harmful.

lol you just implicated ALL religion with that statement, so good work.

So even just from a practical standpoint it's not worth it to even entertain that solution. If you are going to entertain that as a possibility, then you have to consider every other ridiculous possibility that's just as likely from a probability standpoint. Richard Dawkins' Spaghetti Monster analogy comes to mind lol. So once you realize you've started entertaining such nonsense, it behooves you to discredit anyone who would give credence to it.

I am well aware of Richard Dawkins arguments, I was a christopher hitchens type atheist that was an anti-theist. I went around criticizing religion ect... But I personally realized that the true answer to the unknown is infact currently unknowable, why should I tell people they are wrong when we have no idea whether they are or not. The likelihood of them being right is infinitesimally small, but still a possibility.

this is my exact point, you are not a well thought out agnostic. You are more in line with that 50/50 camp. you admit it's an infinitely small possibility yet give credence to them. We call such statistical anamolies "outliers". You're not analyzing the proposed solutions properly if you give them significance.

You seem like you entertain the concept of God, or there being an alternative to the Big Bang, as some likely possibility and that's why I disagree with you. Here's a Richard Dawkins clip to explain my point about the broad range of difference between agnostics, also because Dawkins could say it way better than me:

There is always a possibility that what we know about reality can change drastically, especially if it is trying to explain something that happened billions of years ago. I have seen this video a dozen times :D

Once again, the possibility is so "infinitely small" that it bears not giving the time of day. We might as well sit and talk about how I am god because that is just as likely.

#65 Edited by Cable_Extreme (8086 posts) - - Show Bio

@extremis:

Once again, the possibility is so "infinitely small" that it bears not giving the time of day. We might as well sit and talk about how I am god because that is just as likely.

I am God, you know why?

I prayed every night for many years, and finally after all of those years of praying, I realized I was talking to myself.

#66 Edited by Zijuun (854 posts) - - Show Bio

Grew up as a Hindu.

Now currently a(n) agnostic/deist.

#67 Posted by Extremis (3326 posts) - - Show Bio

@extremis:

Once again, the possibility is so "infinitely small" that it bears not giving the time of day. We might as well sit and talk about how I am god because that is just as likely.

I am God, you know why?

I prayed every night for many years, and finally after all of those years of praying, I realized I was talking to myself.

Sorry but the church of ME says youll go to hell because you don't believe in ME and I am god. Oh, and that's punishable by an eternity in a torturous maw of fire. You should convert to my religion, youll be saved.

#68 Posted by kriminal (642 posts) - - Show Bio

im such an atheist im not even that.

#69 Posted by WillPayton (9043 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton said:

@cable_extreme said:

I am well aware of Richard Dawkins arguments, I was a christopher hitchens type atheist that was an anti-theist. I went around criticizing religion ect... But I personally realized that the true answer to the unknown is infact currently unknowable, why should I tell people they are wrong when we have no idea whether they are or not. The likelihood of them being right is infinitesimally small, but still a possibility.

Sorry to jump into this uninvited, but I wanted to suggest that it depends on 1) the degree of "wrongness" of what the person said, and also 2) the implications of that person holding and propagating that view.

For example, a person on their deathbed might say that they believe they will soon go to Heaven. I'd agree, why challenge them on it? But, a person might say that they believe that if they close their eyes and walk out into traffic, God will help them across and they will not be harmed. Should you stay silent then? Isnt it your moral responsibility to point out to them that they are wrong? Isnt it your moral responsibility to stop them from taking action based on their "belief" if you're convinced that they will be putting themselves and others into serious danger based on those beliefs?

So, saying that "everyone is allowed to their beliefs without being challenged" sounds well and noble, but it's not true in all cases. Sometimes those people really are delusional or insane, and we should treat them as such. When we dont... bad things tend to happen. Children die because their parent refuse to take them to the doctor. People kill themselves because they believe their soul will go up to that spaceship that's travelling with the Hale-Bopp comet.

That is assuming that their belief is wrong. How would we know their highly unlikely deity won't save them?

The same reason I know that if I throw a baseball up, it will come back down. Physics. Also, the fact that while there's thousands of supernatural gods, entities, phenomena, etc that are claimed to exist, there's ZERO evidence for any of it. Logic tells us that the likely explanation is that they dont exist.

If you're asking how we know 100% that their deity doesnt exist... I'll just suggest that that's a useless standard and nothing can be known to 100% certainty. The only useful definition of "knowing" something is whether we're sure that it's true to such a high probability that there's no reasonable chance that it's not.

Given that standard, I "know" that gravity works and I also "know" that invisible omnipotent entities do not go around keeping idiots safe as they stroll blindly through traffic.

But what I am actually referring to is not taking action on a belief, I am talking about a belief in general. I think everyone is permitted to believe without being challenged, but they are not necessarily permitted to take actions on those beliefs if they pose a threat to someone else.

People can believe whatever they want. Of course, just because they have that right doesnt mean that I cant also believe that they are wrong, or that I have to respect those beliefs. There's no "right to not have people tell you that you're wrong". If you really dont want to be told that you're wrong, then stay home with the door locked.

Unfortunately you cant really separate believe from action, because people's actions are based on their beliefs. Normally this isnt much of an issue, but oftentimes if we're talking about politicians and such... it can be a big problem. This is why it's so important to support separation of church and state. Politicians should rarely if ever speak about their religious beliefs, which is pretty much the opposite of what actually happens in the US.

#70 Posted by Cable_Extreme (8086 posts) - - Show Bio

@extremis said:

@cable_extreme said:

@extremis:

Once again, the possibility is so "infinitely small" that it bears not giving the time of day. We might as well sit and talk about how I am god because that is just as likely.

I am God, you know why?

I prayed every night for many years, and finally after all of those years of praying, I realized I was talking to myself.

Sorry but the church of ME says youll go to hell because you don't believe in ME and I am god. Oh, and that's punishable by an eternity in a torturous maw of fire. You should convert to my religion, youll be saved.

Okay!!!!!

#71 Posted by WillPayton (9043 posts) - - Show Bio

@xlr87t3 said:

What about Bootyism?

Bootyism is a persecuted religion around these parts, unfortunately. Our last thread was locked with extreme prejudice by the junta running this site. I do not even dare to post an image of the Sacred Booty for fear of what they might do to me.

#72 Edited by Extremis (3326 posts) - - Show Bio

@xlr87t3 said:

What about Bootyism?

Bootyism is a persecuted religion around these parts, unfortunately. Our last thread was locked with extreme prejudice by the junta running this site. I do not even dare to post an image of the Sacred Booty for fear of what they might do to me.

The Sacred Booty...

#73 Edited by WillPayton (9043 posts) - - Show Bio

Praise the Sacred Booty.

#74 Posted by TheFirstLantern (1474 posts) - - Show Bio

I don't know if it qualifies but for me the Olympian Gods make more logical sense. So i choose them.

#75 Posted by Lady_Liberty (8211 posts) - - Show Bio

I don't believe in the supernatural at all, making me an atheist.

#76 Posted by Yokergeist (12355 posts) - - Show Bio

BATMAN

#77 Posted by TifaLockhart (13977 posts) - - Show Bio

Christian here.

#78 Posted by SithLantern93 (1978 posts) - - Show Bio

Atheism and definitely agnosticism are not religions. But as for which category I fall into, agnosticism.

#79 Posted by Dabee (2375 posts) - - Show Bio

I believe all of the choices exist.

#80 Posted by GoldenOozaru22 (230 posts) - - Show Bio

@joshmightbe: I concur with what you said about Scientology, I just wanted to include it to see if anyone does believe in it.

#81 Posted by laflux (13715 posts) - - Show Bio

I'm a Jesus freak.

Putting Jesus in front of freak, doesn't make it cool. You'd think people would learn by now.....

#82 Posted by laflux (13715 posts) - - Show Bio

Christianity isn't a religion. It is a relationship.

Yeah...... An abusive one

If it makes you feel better, I hurt me a bit to say that, because I'm a big frank ocean fan......

#83 Posted by logy5000 (5635 posts) - - Show Bio

Christianity.

#84 Posted by 616Vulture (1470 posts) - - Show Bio

JW

I'll let you figure out what that stands for

#85 Posted by gumflabica (2160 posts) - - Show Bio

I never thought it hard to believe that this infinite universe was once crammed into a space the size of a bouncy ball. Nor do I fine it suspicious that scientists and philosophers just gave up on things like the beginning of time, the end of the universe, and other things that would actually have to be explained to people. You know why? Because I'm a clone.

#86 Posted by AweSam (7360 posts) - - Show Bio

@xlr87t3 said:

What about Bootyism?

You damned Bootists just won't give up until every thread is filled with your crap (no pun intended). Boobyism is the only way to go.

#87 Posted by gumflabica (2160 posts) - - Show Bio

Gah-ha!

#88 Posted by GoldenOozaru22 (230 posts) - - Show Bio

@innervenom123:

Athiest don't want it to be called a religion. But technically they are, here is a good explanation.

"Contemporary Western Atheism unquestionably has six of the seven dimensions of religion set forth by Smart, and the remaining dimension, ritual, has also started to develop. Thus it’s fallacious to assert, “Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour”. Perhaps a better analogy would be calling a shaved head a “hairstyle”. Other than the denial of the divine, there is little difference between Atheism and other worldviews typically labelled as religions."

http://creation.mobi/atheism-a-religion

#89 Posted by King Saturn (223723 posts) - - Show Bio

@awesam said:

@xlr87t3 said:

What about Bootyism?

You damned Bootists just won't give up until every thread is filled with your crap (no pun intended). Boobyism is the only way to go.

he he

#90 Edited by GoldenOozaru22 (230 posts) - - Show Bio

I'm an Agnostic Theist, it basically means I believe in the existence of at least one deity , and that no one can prove or disprove that any deities exist with today's current knowledge.

#91 Posted by wildvine (8043 posts) - - Show Bio

This has been done.

#92 Posted by Cable_Extreme (8086 posts) - - Show Bio

I'm an Agnostic Theist, it basically means I believe in the existence of at least one deity , and that no one can prove or disprove that any deities exist with today's current knowledge.

That is true, you sound a bit like a deist, check it out unless you are a christian or defined belief.

#94 Posted by Aiden Cross (15557 posts) - - Show Bio

None whatsoever. =)

#95 Posted by Raiiyn (3429 posts) - - Show Bio
#96 Posted by GoldenOozaru22 (230 posts) - - Show Bio

@cable_extreme:

Yo!!!! You got me reallly thinking...

-A deist believes there is a God who created all things, but does not believe in His superintendence and government.

-A theist believes there is a God who created everything and governs all creation...

So the difference is only in if the god watches over his creations.

Now is there something in between those lines, like,

Someone who believes in a god but has no idea if their "god" governs all creation!??

#97 Posted by Son Of Storm (11252 posts) - - Show Bio
#98 Posted by God_Spawn (37158 posts) - - Show Bio
Moderator
#99 Posted by Cable_Extreme (8086 posts) - - Show Bio

@cable_extreme:

Yo!!!! You got me reallly thinking...

-A deist believes there is a God who created all things, but does not believe in His superintendence and government.

-A theist believes there is a God who created everything and governs all creation...

So the difference is only in if the god watches over his creations.

Now is there something in between those lines, like,

Someone who believes in a god but has no idea if their "god" governs all creation!??

Well, hmmm, that is a hard one. It depends on whether or not you think a god intervenes or not. Like me for example, I use to be a Deist because it made sense why people died, why bad things happen. Because (at the time I thought) the Universe was created by a higher power, but why think he would intervene when the Universe runs on laws that govern it and sustain it. Laws like Gravity, magnetism, Nuclear fusion ect... all help the Universe run without any type of interference. So I thought a creator that made the universe similar to how a clock maker makes a watch, it "once created" could run on and on and on without the need of help. I would also argue that with these laws, who is to say that we are more important than any other life out there? We are the byproduct of natural laws, so it is conceivable that the same laws caused other life ect... The creator might now even know we exist (that is what I thought).

#100 Posted by BigCimmerian (7845 posts) - - Show Bio

I am Christian Orthodox.