nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Do you believe in God?

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

I'd like to think I do. Light candles in a church for people that have passed away in my life. And I certainly identify as an Irish Catholic for ethnicity purposes.

Having said that, I'm firmly of the belief that when you die you're absolutely gone. If an afterlife does exist, it makes no sense how anyone would actually know what it's like there.

The church have been responsible for the most heinous crimes against individuals since the state got independence. And suicide bombers are mostly influenced by religion to carry out what they do.

I think I believe in God, but not in religion, while also thinking an afterlife doesn't exist.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

nozzferrahhtoo

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

I find near death experiences fascinating. Of course, you will always get the element who are only faking it to get a quick buck

I find NDE very interesting too. Deeply so. But not in any religious, paranormal or supernatural sense. I find them interesting in terms of what they reveal to us about the human brain and it's function.

I think there are many explanations and discussions one can have without thinking people are "faking it for a quick buck" too. I think that explanation is likely by far the rarest. There likely IS such people, but I doubt they make up much of the ones who had NDE.

There was a neurosurgeon who wrote a book about his own NDE for example. While he made a good buck from the sales, I doubt he did it for that reason. He seems to be genuinely moved by his experience. Alas being a neurosurgeon he was quite ignorant of a lot of neuroscience... and he made some glaring errors and assumptions in his thesis. Surgeons know a lot less theory than you might expect alas.

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

for so many millions of people to have the same experience and indeed, be changed by it going forward, is very compelling to me.

Funny, it is the opposite for me. I would find it more shocking if the millions of people were all having DIFFERENT experiences. That they are having the same experience seems normal to me. After all, when we do pretty much anything else.... we have much the same experience. If you have sex, eat a meal, sleep, stab your hand with a needle, get thirsty, spin around really fast, take alcohol.... or any other number of things I could name...... our experience would be pretty much identical. So why should we expect NDE to be any different?

We are diverse and individual to a degree, but really we are all the same too. Like a Skoda made from mostly VW car parts, they might look different on the outside but under the body they are essentially the same car that works the same way. The same is true of you and me and of people from other races. We all function pretty much identically. So our responses and experiences in many situations will be identical. So I would very much expect NDE experience to be consistent across our species.

If it was massively different from person to person.... now THAT would be interesting and compelling and weird.

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

I know this doesn't proof or disprove God in any way, but its certainly food for thought for some kind of an afterlife.

Quite the opposite. NDE is about as much as experience of the after life as walking up to a plane but nor boarding it is an experience of a sun holiday away in the south of Spain. The N in NDE is the important bit for me. NEAR death. As in.... the patient did not die. So by definition it was not an experience of the after life, but very much an experience of THIS life.

Further there is not one aspect of NDE I am aware of that one can not experience in other ways. By chemical and/or physical perturbation of the body one can have everything from bright lights to out of body experiences. In fact you can stimulate a mild OBE in yourself using noting more than a small screen, a fake hand, and a feather. A party trick someone showed me which I love using on people now.

So no, nothing whatsoever about NDE is suggestive of an after life to me. Not even a little. But I fully agree it remains, as I said, a massively interesting phenomenon for many reasons none the less.

nthclare

Pherekydes wrote: »

Nothing ironic about it at all.

Have a look at the thread title.

If the thread was entitled "Do you believe in Santa?" a lot less mercy would be shown, and, I suspect, a lot less agnosticism.

Oh it's down to mercy now is it, praise be to Macha....
Mercy for the agnostics and believer's, you've me shuddering at the thoughts of having a discussion with you, oh wise one.

A lot less agnosticism oh really, I'm feeling so insecure now.

nthclare

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I find NDE very interesting too. Deeply so. But not in any religious, paranormal or supernatural sense. I find them interesting in terms of what they reveal to us about the human brain and it's function.

I think there are many explanations and discussions one can have without thinking people are "faking it for a quick buck" too. I think that explanation is likely by far the rarest. There likely IS such people, but I doubt they make up much of the ones who had NDE.

There was a neurosurgeon who wrote a book about his own NDE for example. While he made a good buck from the sales, I doubt he did it for that reason. He seems to be genuinely moved by his experience. Alas being a neurosurgeon he was quite ignorant of a lot of neuroscience... and he made some glaring errors and assumptions in his thesis. Surgeons know a lot less theory than you might expect alas.

Funny, it is the opposite for me. I would find it more shocking if the millions of people were all having DIFFERENT experiences. That they are having the same experience seems normal to me. After all, when we do pretty much anything else.... we have much the same experience. If you have sex, eat a meal, sleep, stab your hand with a needle, get thirsty, spin around really fast, take alcohol.... or any other number of things I could name...... our experience would be pretty much identical. So why should we expect NDE to be any different?

We are diverse and individual to a degree, but really we are all the same too. Like a Skoda made from mostly VW car parts, they might look different on the outside but under the body they are essentially the same car that works the same way. The same is true of you and me and of people from other races. We all function pretty much identically. So our responses and experiences in many situations will be identical. So I would very much expect NDE experience to be consistent across our species.

If it was massively different from person to person.... now THAT would be interesting and compelling and weird.

Quite the opposite. NDE is about as much as experience of the after life as walking up to a plane but nor boarding it is an experience of a sun holiday away in the south of Spain. The N in NDE is the important bit for me. NEAR death. As in.... the patient did not die. So by definition it was not an experience of the after life, but very much an experience of THIS life.

Further there is not one aspect of NDE I am aware of that one can not experience in other ways. By chemical and/or physical perturbation of the body one can have everything from bright lights to out of body experiences. In fact you can stimulate a mild OBE in yourself using noting more than a small screen, a fake hand, and a feather. A party trick someone showed me which I love using on people now.

So no, nothing whatsoever about NDE is suggestive of an after life to me. Not even a little. But I fully agree it remains, as I said, a massively interesting phenomenon for many reasons none the less.

So you're undermining a neuro surgeon now.

What qualifications have you to be able to suggest your assumption ?

nozzferrahhtoo

nthclare wrote: »

So you're undermining a neuro surgeon now.

Not in the slightest. I have endless respect for them and their profession. I just know their limits too. And he showed them in the book he wrote about his NDE.

There is nothing wrong with, let alone "undermining" about pointing out that someone in profession X does not know as much about profession Y as people might generally expect them too. This is quite normal in fact. I once knew a car mechanic who did not have a driving license. Never passed a test. I would have expected a car mechanic to know how to drive. I also know people who worked in the army who never held or fired a gun.

The simple fact is the neuro-surgeon in question made some glaring errors and assumptions in his book. Errors that surprised me at first given his field of expertise, but then I realised that that was my failing not his. I assumed too much about what he SHOULD know to do the work he does. Surgeons often have to know things you might not expect, and to know things you might expect.

nthclare wrote: »

What qualifications have you to be able to suggest your assumption ?

Can you be more specific? Which assumption do you refer to? If you want to question something I said, then do so. My qualifications have nothing to do with it. What I can or can not defend as a claim or point does.

EDIT: Nice of you to ignore my reply to you and jump on my reply to someone else though.

Len_007

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Okay. So let's, for argument's sake, agree that all humans are born with original sin. Are some infants born with more original sin and suffer premature and painful death as a result?

Inherent sin is a state all mankind is born into because our Federal (Representative) Head Adam rejected God's rule in his life. It's not measurable in that sense. Therefore when an infant or anyone else dies the Bible does not give us the authority to say it is because there is a direct link between a specific transgression in their life that God has brought about their death.
However it is true to say, 'the wages of sin is death', death is here because of sin.

Yet, the Bible has good news for the 2 year old, and the 72 year old who have come to the end before we have.

Fourier

igCorcaigh wrote: »

Whenever I come back to a thread, people are arguing!

Anyway, I wanted to say that the belief in God, or at least the argument for a God, has declined as our scientific knowledge increased. That is regarding academic thought. Not among the masses (!) of people.

Before Darwin, it could have been arguable based on the mystery of biology.

Physics, though, has not provided that counter argument at all, it seems, because physics is in crisis and has been since the creation of quantum theory about 100 years ago.

Plus, we are nowhere near explaining consciousness, despite many claims to the same.

Does science really have a role in the God idea anymore?

I meant to answer this.

I'm not sure what you mean by the crisis, but if you mean that quantum theory doesn't actually explain what things are like, but only deals with perceptions, yep that is a bit odd.

Finding out that there's a "transcendent" creative layer to the world has different effects on different people. I know one physicist who went from atheist to theist and another who went from theist to atheist due to quantum mechanics.

zimmermania

Woke Hogan wrote: »

It's as much a part of the human condition to hope against hope for life after "the end" as it is to, say, participate in or watch sport. Virtually every society has believed in some sort of deity or afterlife, after all.

That's why I despise the obese, sneering internet atheists you will find on websites like this. The kind who giggle into their braided goatees about space teapots or flying spaghetti monsters. Their claims to be operating on a higher intellectual plain instead of jogging or believing in the supernatural rings a little hollow to myself when you see them indulging in their basest urges: sitting and eating processed food until they pass out. The kind with exotic colours and cartoon characters on the packaging.

I do respect that many people are desperate for comfort as they come close to death but ultimately there's no reason in my view to believe in god.

What about thin athiests? or fat,bloated believers with or without clerical collars?.

Len_007

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I don't know of many disciplining parents who believe that all their children deserve to die (your Luke 13 story) but may choose to let some of them live a bit longer 'by grace' before causing them to suffer an immensely painful death.

He's definitely leaning more towards the psycho side of the coin.

My anthropomorphic description of the God as the Bible being like a disciplining parent (as he describes himself to be) towards his people fitted the context of my reply when I used it. You have shifted the illustration to a category that doesn't really ask God to take a parental role in.
When it comes to God introducing death as a consequence to man's actions into the world he created, he does so as the Ruler and Judge of this world. The fact that we can have some understanding of just how awful death is, is to be instructive to us - in letting us know that sin is a deal breaker for the God of the Bible. The just sentence mankind has been served is death, the fact it hasn't come today for you or I is down to his sheer patience and kindness towards us.

And though it will come, the Bible has good news for our essence that survives the death of the flesh.

nthclare

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not in the slightest. I have endless respect for them and their profession. I just know their limits too. And he showed them in the book he wrote about his NDE.

There is nothing wrong with, let alone "undermining" about pointing out that someone in profession X does not know as much about profession Y as people might generally expect them too. This is quite normal in fact. I once knew a car mechanic who did not have a driving license. Never passed a test. I would have expected a car mechanic to know how to drive. I also know people who worked in the army who never held or fired a gun.

The simple fact is the neuro-surgeon in question made some glaring errors and assumptions in his book. Errors that surprised me at first given his field of expertise, but then I realised that that was my failing not his. I assumed too much about what he SHOULD know to do the work he does. Surgeons often have to know things you might not expect, and to know things you might expect.

Can you be more specific? Which assumption do you refer to? If you want to question something I said, then do so. My qualifications have nothing to do with it. What I can or can not defend as a claim or point does.

EDIT: Nice of you to ignore my reply to you and jump on my reply to someone else though.

I am working off an android phone and don't know how to work this like you can.

The way you can embolden my paragraphs etc, I don't know how to do it.

Or how you are able to respond to my paragraphs etc.

I'm also slightly dyslexic, so I find it difficult to explain myself, but I try my best.

Maybe I need a crash course on board's.

Beechwoodspark

So if god intervenes why so much injustice and downright unfairness in the world ??

nozzferrahhtoo

nthclare wrote: »

Maybe I need a crash course on board's.

If our paths ever cross, I shall be happy to give you one. No problem.

Professor Moriarty

Len_007 wrote: »

Inherent sin is a state all mankind is born into because our Federal (Representative) Head Adam rejected God's rule in his life. It's not measurable in that sense.

So someone who lived millions of years ago (6,000 if you're a creationist) did something wrong and a child must suffer today for that misdemeanour?

Therefore when an infant or anyone else dies the Bible does not give us the authority to say it is because there is a direct link between a specific transgression in their life that God has brought about their death.

So a two year old child may have "transgressed". Okay got that. But ultimately, we have no idea why that child has suffered and died?

However it is true to say, 'the wages of sin is death', death is here because of sin.

A question. Would you say that to parents of a young child who had just died? If not, why not?

Yet,the Bible has good news for the 2 year old, and the 72 year old who have come to the end before we have.

Everybody goes to heaven?

nthclare

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

So if god intervenes why so much injustice and downright unfairness in the world ??

He doesn't and if the Abrahamic God existed he'd definitely be a sociopath or psychopath.

Because that dude is responsible for millions of death's, countless wars and injustices.

In my opinion if it was all real, Satan was the good guy who decided to himself he's not standing for any more **** and wanted his independence and helped man kind to enjoy the more pleasurable experiences in life, while God hid away the things which were more desirable and satisfying.

Being a pagan, I am well aware of the total bull**** that comes from the Abrahamic version of lifestyle etc

Some Yoke

I believe in Jesus

Holly13

I don’t believe in God, but I wish I did. Told my parents when I was 12 that I wasn’t going to Mass with them anymore because I didn’t believe any of it.
I love churches and lighting candles for people though.

auspicious

Fourier wrote: »

Not quite. This solution flies in the face monotheism.

Fourier

nthclare wrote: »

Being a pagan, I am well aware of the total bull**** that comes from the Abrahamic version of lifestyle etc

What type of pagan can I ask?

Norse, Celtic, Greek, etc?

theological

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

The truth is, your whole faith is based on the area of the world you happen to be born in and the book that happened to take hold there. If you were born in another part of the world youd be another religion. Although maybe youd be the lone white man in the middle east and gain a following........

This is an outdated argument for a number of reasons.

There are many more Christians outside of the Western world than there are in it.

If my beliefs were solely grounded in geography and my demographic in respect to age, race, and so on, the chances are much higher that I would be an secularist / atheist like you rather than a Bible believing Christian to be fair.

Are you sure that you aren't an atheist just based on geography or have you thought it through and looked at it for yourself?

nthclare

Fourier wrote: »

What type of pagan can I ask?

Norse, Celtic, Greek, etc?

I don't fall into any category to be honest.
I'm a bit of a lone wolf, but maybe leaning more towards the Celtic pagan myself.

I am mesmerized by plant's, bird's, fish all creature's big and small, good people and every morning I wake up I'm thankful to be alive.

I suppose the best thing I ever experienced was the time I realized that the whole church and Christian thing was a load of horse ****...

Pagans fought different clan's in the past and had their own battle's and rituals etc
But they never sough world domination or were saying that non believers will burn in hell.

They weren't obsessed with sex like the Christians were either, they embraced sex and had god's and goddesses, a bit like polytheism but they appreciated different energies and the season's, then the christians came....

Fourier

Thanks for answering nthclare. I'm not pagan myself, but I really like older mythologies especially Celtic and Norse.

nthclare

Fourier wrote: »

Thanks for answering nthclare. I'm not pagan myself, but I really like older mythologies especially Celtic and Norse.

It's amazing alright, more creative and action packed than the Abrahamic myths.

Being on the periphery of the Atlantic Ocean in the most western part of Europe, we've nothing in common with the sand demon of the middle East.
It makes no sense that me, all that burning in hell, eternal damnation etc

So what if there's nothing at the end, but our good deeds and friendships will live on in other peoples mind's, if we're parents and our children have children and so on there will always be a part of our DNA and the DNA of our ancestors lives on in us.

Either way, I hope to leave this place with happy memories and have been useful to others....

Professor Moriarty

Fourier wrote: »

Thanks for answering nthclare. I'm not pagan myself, but I really like older mythologies especially Celtic and Norse.

Greek philosophy, especially Epicureanism and Stoicism, offers very logical ways of understanding 'God'. Much more so than any current mainstream religions.

Professor Moriarty

nthclare wrote: »

It's amazing alright, more creative and action packed than the Abrahamic myths.

Being on the periphery of the Atlantic Ocean in the most western part of Europe, we've nothing in common with the sand demon of the middle East.
It makes no sense that me, all that burning in hell, eternal damnation etc

So what if there's nothing at the end, but our good deeds and friendships will live on in other peoples mind's, if we're parents and our children have children and so on there will always be a part of our DNA and the DNA of our ancestors lives on in us.

Either way, I hope to leave this place with happy memories and have been useful to others....

This is often wrongly attributed to Marcus Aurelius but it makes sense anyway:

Live a Good Life
If there are Gods and they are just, you will have served them.
If there are Gods and they are unjust, you should not have wanted to serve them.
If there are no Gods, your noble deeds will live on in the memories of your loved ones.

uck51js9zml2yt

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

You cant use lines from a book some lad wrote to prove the existence of the characters in the same book.

Would you accept my argument that Harry Potter is real if my only proof for it is that theres a book about him?

The truth is, your whole faith is based on the area of the world you happen to be born in and the book that happened to take hold there. If you were born in another part of the world youd be another religion. Although maybe youd be the lone white man in the middle east and gain a following........

You obviously don't know about a huge Christian Church in Communist China or the Muslims who are turning to Christ in the Middle East or the Hindus in India. Where you're born has no part to play in a belief in Christ.

Marhay70

Len_007 wrote: »

I don't think that is fair. There are many characteristics (as you point out) ascribed to God in the Bible, that was one I used that I felt fit the context.

Indeed, if God is omniscient as the Bible claims him to be, then he knew how it would all go down.
Interesting that you see him being guilty of Entrapment.
Would you see life being a worthy endeavour despite the inevitability of death?
Parents have brought a life into the world knowing full well that this person will one day suffer and die, it's only a matter of time. Yet, our world is based on this fundamental principal, and we don't question the worth of doing it.

The logic of placing a guard in the way to the tree of life, was an act of grace. To live perpetually in this new state of rebellion and hatred toward God for ever was not originally intended. Therefore by God allowing a person to die, it releases them from this experience.

Incidentally, Revelation ends with mankind living with God forever with full access to the tree of life again.

The fact that God is "invisible" now, meaning that, he doesn't act in ways he did in the Bible, is not new. There were long stretches of time when there was "no new word from the LORD" during the time span the Bible covers. Sending plagues was not his day job. But, there were big tent pole events in Israel's history that were meant to be used at the time of judgment from God to wayward peoples, and then seen and understood as object lessons.
Less Psychopath, more a disciplining Parent.

What we have here is entrapment as I said. An omniscient God would know exactly what was about to unfold and, to put it simply, he must have wanted it to happen. He knew the participants, he knew the circumstances and he knew the result. He knew that, far from just condemning Adam and Eve to death, he was condemning billions of their descendants to death and on the way to that death to pain and suffering.Why create the thing if this was your plan for it?
By his duplicity he created sin and had he not created sin there would be no need for redemption so the raison d'etre of Christianity would not exist . There would have been no need for the messiah or the crucifixion or any of the suffering that has happened since then
Definitely not the reasonable actions of a concerned parent but those of a psychopath.

Marhay70

Taliyah Vast Gofer wrote: »

You obviously don't know about a huge Christian Church in Communist China or the Muslims who are turning to Christ in the Middle East or the Hindus in India. Where you're born has no part to play in a belief in Christ.

What about the millions in the old world who have turned their backs on it? Even God's representative on earth couldn't draw a decent crowd in what was once the most devoutly Catholic country on earth

hgfj

There are no gods, only believers. God is an invention of Man. All gods created by men are merely reflections of their own biases, prejudices and desires. Man decides what he wants and doesn't want, and then projects this bias onto his creation, God. So when Man says that God says unbaptised babies must burn in hell it is in fact only Man saying unbaptised babies go to hell. The crueller the Man, the crueller the God the Man creates.

[Deleted User]

theological wrote: »

You've been getting all kinds of excellent Bible based answers from a number of posters. I've got pretty much nothing to add.

The problem is that you don't like the answer. That's fine, we don't promise that you will. However, the questions I've seen on this thread have been clearly answered with reference to Scripture.

Here's a great answer below for example:

So just to be sure that I understand it correctly, the people who experience cancer and other dreadful conditions today are being punished by God for the actions of their predecessors thousands of years ago?

Doesn't it all seem a little needy, vindictive, almost psychopathic?

hgfj

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Doesn't it all seem a little needy, vindictive, almost psychopathic?

Even human.

Len_007

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Len_007 wrote: »

So someone who lived millions of years ago (6,000 if you're a creationist) did something wrong and a child must suffer today for that misdemeanour?

Had you not agreed for the "sake" of the argument with Original/Inherent sin?
Through Adam's act of rebellion all mankind became corrupted, to the extent that 'even infants bringing their condemnation with them from their mothers womb, suffer not for another, but for their own defect. For although they have not yet produced the fruits of their own unrighteousness, they have the seed implanted in them' (Calvin).
Therefore, any suffering in this world is here because of the great taint sin ushered in. Any suffering we experience personally, is because of this general pollution in the world. And if we are not suffering, it is because God is gracious.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Len_007 wrote: »

A question. Would you say that to parents of a young child who had just died?

I have said that there is hope of seeing their young child again. There is good Biblical grounds to think that God does not condemn persons who don't reach the age where they can make conclusions on the Grace, Glory or Justice of God.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Len_007 wrote: »

Everybody goes to heaven?

No.

How do you answer your questions?