What is your belief regarding the existence of "God"?

[Trooper]

This is a little beyond uninformed…:crazy:

This remark was aimed at SolusCado's belief that the Adam and Eve story isn't a complete myth.

I wanted to say "WTF is wrong with him", but I was trying to be polite...('tis not my forte) :mufc:

, do you care to explain what you see wrong in the idea?

You are friggin kidding, right?

 

[jpappl]

Of course. That's like asking if I believe is electricity. And before you try to parade THAT tired argument out, try reading Genesis 1 with a little less skepticism:

The land called "Earth" (the only instance of Earth capitalized in the KJV FWIW) isn't created until verse 10, which indicates the "heaven and the earth" referenced in verse 1 is referring to something else. Knowing that, and recognizing that the men who initially wrote this down (or passed on the stories verbally for that matter) also knew nothing of physics, cosmology, or matter in general, and that any divine message would necessarily be restricted to their knowledge at the time, one must acknowledge that whatever is being described here needs fresh translation to be understood in the context of modern science. (To judge its spiritual accuracy based on primitive man's lack of scientific knowledge is just plain ridiculous.)

Anyway, taking that into account, try re-reading the first chapter with the following updated language:

1 In the beginning God created the space and energy.

2 And the energy was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the universe.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and fusion was sparked.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first epoch.

6 And God said, Let there be matter in the midst of the universe, and let it divide the one kind of energy from the others.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the energies (think electromagnetic, strong/weak, and gravity) which were under the firmament from the energies which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament empty space. And the evening and the morning were the second epoch.

9 And God said, Let the energy under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry matter appear: and it was so.

10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

13 And the evening and the morning were the third epoch.

(And so on and so forth. From there on out, continuing with the term "epoch" you see the flow of evolution just as we understand it today.)

Tired argument ?

You believe in christian theology and evolution.

Ok, so how many years does one day represent ?

Did man also evolve from lower species to where he is today ?

Just want to be sure I understand your position on this.

 

[Trooper]

I have some work that I have to finish but I’ll be back.

WARNING

Spoiler

If you have the need to believe then don’t ask me any questions. I will not corrupt your soul. However, I may convince you that you never had one to begin with...:mufc:

 

[SolusCado]

This remark was aimed at SolusCado's belief that the Adam and Eve story isn't a complete myth.

Yes, a statement I then elaborated on. What about my elaboration seems worthy of the query "WTF is wrong with [me]"?

You are friggin kidding, right?

No, I am not kidding - please do address ideas rather than insult members. I'm not sure that is even allowed in the policies of the forum.

Tired argument ?

Yes, tired - it seems to be the defacto argument atheists raise against Christianity, and is only predicated on a very narrow interpretation of Genesis. It is far simpler to object to an idea when you limit your scope of allowed interpretations of said idea to those that fit into your argument against.

You believe in christian theology and evolution.

Ok, so how many years does one day represent ?

Yes, and if you read my proposed update of the language you would see that I believe the "days" are really "epochs". There is no set time for any of them. Some could be 10 millions years, others 100 million.

Did man also evolve from lower species to where he is today ?

Just want to be sure I understand your position on this.

Yes, something that I again spelled out in my description of Adam.

 

[gmilam]

Continuing in the thread of analogies (or rather, as I prefer to put it, limited language), I believe the Adam and Eve story isn't a complete myth, but instead refers to the first moment of "divine inspiration" - something that was probably a genetic switch that fundamentally gave homo sapien the capability to recognize God in the world around him - to be able to commune with God. I suspect Adam, and the other names that lived several hundred years are actually referring to familial lines rather than individuals, and the "fall from Grace" was again a genetic evolutionary aspect of mankind. Namely, that with the development of a sense of morality as a concept, man became aware of the difference between "natural urges" and a sense of perfection that transcends the natural. It isn't that man somehow "fell", but rather became aware of his own nature, and recognized a need for something more than the default, so to speak. With this evolutionary development, "Adam and all his sons" - i.e. the evolutionary chain stemming from that genetic line, all of these people shared the capability to recognize their human nature - their "sinful nature". It was in turn this recognition that led to the genetic traits that make guilt possible and thus represented the injection of guilt - and the need for reconciliation - into the gene pool.

It is further my belief that the coming of Christ represented another milestone in the evolution of Homo Sapien whereby we became capable as a species to absolve ourselves of guilt through internal (i.e. direct with God) mechanisms, rather than a need to make a sacrifice. This is why today so many people are in fact capable of saying "what's the difference" between a universe with no God and one with. We are now capable in ways we weren't before to rid ourselves of the psychological poison of guilt without a sacrifice made at a temple.

Interesting.

For better or worse Paul, the man who wrote the majority of the new testament, apparently thought it was a literal true story. (1 Corinthians 15:21-22) I guess god hadn't let him in on the whole limited language idea...

 

[Trooper]

Yes, a statement I then elaborated on. What about my elaboration seems worthy of the query "WTF is wrong with [me]"?

um...This part...

"that the Adam and Eve story isn't a complete myth"

 

[SolusCado]

um...This part...

"that the Adam and Eve story isn't a complete myth"

Which I then went on to describe in detail. You're going to have to be more specific if you expect your derision to carry any weight.

 

[jpappl]

SolusCado,

Actually, there is no burden of evidence on me at all, as I am not trying to convince anyone of anything, or prove anything to anyone. I believe this started with you attempting to force me to contradict myself, which you have not yet done.

Yes, you claimed that man could not have come up with the idea of god, I showed examples of humans in different locations coming up with their own ideas of god(s). It's not so much as a contradiction on this, just to re-examine your statement that man could not come up with the idea of god.

“ Originally Posted by jpappl
In your mind ”

I believe you are confusing faith in something with the genesis of something. I did not invent the idea, so it is not I that "created God".

No but since there is no need to put a god in there, since there is no evidence of god, you believing in god is all in your mind. There is nothing to indicate or drive a belief in a god. Yes it is all faith.

Well, I was certainly brought up in an environment that taught the existence of God, but I didn't truly believe until one day, during prayer, and I suddenly had an epiphany (I believe it was God speaking to me

God spoke to you ?

Why would god speak to you ?

“ Originally Posted by jpappl
If god exists outside of the universe and is supernatural, why does the workings of the universe matter ? ”

Matter? To what or whom?

Why do is it matter how the universe operates if god exists outside of the universe and is supernatural.

IOW, you keep talking about how the christian theology lines up perfectly (cough) with what science has learned about the workings of the universe.

But since he exists outside or the universe and is supernatural it doesn't matter how the universe operates to god. Correct ?

So you don't need to explain how it interacts with us. You can't anyway.

Likewise, the definition of who and what God is, according to any particular theology, is something that can be better understood by studying said theology. When said theology makes statements about how God interacts with people and the rest of the world, experiencing these things firsthand (just like seeing a sunset or apple) helps us to better "know God".

[/QUOTE]

Oh here we go. If only we would read the bible we would understand.

“ Originally Posted by jpappl
Why doesn't it make sense ? Didn't christians believe that god was sitting in the clouds within our atmostphere at one point. Seriously, you guys just keep moving the goal posts to keep up with science. ”

I refer you back to my last post, and to something I have said many times before, and something that SHOULD be clear to anyone. If one believes God created "everything", then as that "everything" is further defined, our understanding of what God created is further defined. It was ALWAYS understood that God "resided beyond" His creation. We just didn't know what all that creation entailed. As scientific discovery has expanded that knowledge, so too has our understanding of where "God resides" further expanded.

LOL. Moving goal posts that's all.

Why don't they just re-write the thing every twenty years or so.

I still don't understand why a omnipotent/supernatural being can't be within the universe or part of it.

If free will is the ability to exercise choice over your actions,
And this choice is based on an action to be taken,
Then the choice can only be made prior to the action.
If the universe exists in a timeless state,
Then your actions have already been made,
And any choice cannot be made prior to any action

So let me ask another way to better define.

God knows all time correct ?

So god knows what our choices are/were/will be correct ?

Did god allow us to make our own choice at the time the choice was made or not ?

And was that choice our own choice or is it merely the illusion of a choice, IOW, did god make the choice for us but only allow us to believe we made the choice ?

I never said that His existence did make a difference, so I certainly can't answer your question

That's an odd statement from a christian

See above for my reasons as to why I do believe in not just a God, but Christianity in particular. My belief in God doesn't hinder my ability to gain knowledge in other areas, since I continue to refine my understanding of God as my knowledge of the boundaries of space and time are themselves changed. I didn't invent the idea of God, so I cannot address the notion of "putting a god in there where none is needed"; I can only explain how the current ideas fit quite nicely into everything else I see and understand about the world around me.

He fits nicely in your world because you want to believe. However, I will commend you on separating the two to allow reality to enter. IOW, I think people can certainly believe in a god and believe in the sciences. As long as they are willing to allow the discoveries of science to be included.

Otherwise, you might as well go work at the creationist museum.

I appreciate your sentiment, and frankly, I share the desire. The difference is that I continue to refine my beliefs if and/or when contradictions arise, rather than simply abandom them.

And that is fair. If you note, I am not trying to get you to abandon them, just question them.

And IMO, the key is to address that which does not fit. That is more important to the strength of a postion than that which fits.

For example. UFO or ET proponents find all sorts of things to fit in their beliefs and support it. But have a hard time looking at or accepting that which challenges it.

Look at that which challenges the belief and see if it holds water. If it does and you do not move in the direction of stronger or better information then you are on the road to delusionville.

When it comes to ones beliefs, scrutinize the information, then scrutinize and scrutinize some more.

 

[Trooper]

Which I then went on to describe in detail. You're going to have to be more specific if you expect your derision to carry any weight.

For starters, it clashes with the theory of evolution. This is a wild idea that you cannot backup with any references or scientific proof. Do you have any biological, historical, or anthropological evidence, anything? If not, then why would I bother to disprove your crazy idea? It's just your idea and there is no logical reason for anyone to believe that is true. Try researching it yourself. If you want to believe it, that’s fine by me, but don’t expect anyone else to take this crap seriously.

Continuing in the thread of analogies (or rather, as I prefer to put it, limited language), I believe the Adam and Eve story isn't a complete myth, but instead refers to the first moment of "divine inspiration" - something that was probably a genetic switch that fundamentally gave homo sapien the capability to recognize God in the world around him - to be able to commune with God. I suspect Adam, and the other names that lived several hundred years are actually referring to familial lines rather than individuals, and the "fall from Grace" was again a genetic evolutionary aspect of mankind. Namely, that with the development of a sense of morality as a concept, man became aware of the difference between "natural urges" and a sense of perfection that transcends the natural. It isn't that man somehow "fell", but rather became aware of his own nature, and recognized a need for something more than the default, so to speak. With this evolutionary development, "Adam and all his sons" - i.e. the evolutionary chain stemming from that genetic line, all of these people shared the capability to recognize their human nature - their "sinful nature". It was in turn this recognition that led to the genetic traits that make guilt possible and thus represented the injection of guilt - and the need for reconciliation - into the gene pool.

It is further my belief that the coming of Christ represented another milestone in the evolution of Homo Sapien whereby we became capable as a species to absolve ourselves of guilt through internal (i.e. direct with God) mechanisms, rather than a need to make a sacrifice. This is why today so many people are in fact capable of saying "what's the difference" between a universe with no God and one with. We are now capable in ways we weren't before to rid ourselves of the psychological poison of guilt without a sacrifice made at a temple.

 

[jpappl]

SolusCado,

“ Originally Posted by jpappl
Tired argument ? ”

Yes, tired - it seems to be the defacto argument atheists raise against Christianity, and is only predicated on a very narrow interpretation of Genesis. It is far simpler to object to an idea when you limit your scope of allowed interpretations of said idea to those that fit into your argument against.

Let me go further. No sense in talking to you about it if you were a strict creationist. By the way there are christians who believe the bible is the word of god and that it all happened in 6-7 days about 5000 years ago. So you also have an argument with them.

Do you believe in other species outside of earth, aliens etc ?

“ Originally Posted by jpappl
You believe in christian theology and evolution.

Ok, so how many years does one day represent ? ”

Yes, and if you read my proposed update of the language you would see that I believe the "days" are really "epochs". There is no set time for any of them. Some could be 10 millions years, others 100 million.

So why wouldn't they just write it that way in the first place.

Why do you the believer need to change the book to fit our current understanding ?

Is this not the words of god ?

Why wouldn't it just say, in the book. Man evolved from lower species to where he is today ? You realize that it in fact says the opposite. That man was created in his image.

You do know that christians had and have historically fought the idea of man evolving from lower species. So why do you think that is ?

You say nobody comes up with an original idea.

So where did you get the idea of days being epochs etc etc so that the discoveries of science fits in with christian creationism.

 

[SolusCado]

SolusCado,
Yes, you claimed that man could not have come up with the idea of god, I showed examples of humans in different locations coming up with their own ideas of god(s). It's not so much as a contradiction on this, just to re-examine your statement that man could not come up with the idea of god.

I feel like this line of conversation is actually over. I stated that I didn't have that much faith in the raw imaginative power of man, and more to the point I see no reason to think that man individually invented the initial idea of God in multiple disparate locations. Your examples show that the idea was uniquely developed in various locales, not originated. There is a huge difference, and we simply have no way of knowing where the ideas originated.

No but since there is no need to put a god in there, since there is no evidence of god, you believing in god is all in your mind. There is nothing to indicate or drive a belief in a god. Yes it is all faith.

No argument here.

God spoke to you ?

Why would god speak to you ?

It isn't a question of why but rather that's just what happens. If you stand out and hear wind blowing by you don't ask why did the wind make that sound for you - it simply made the sound, because that's what it does. It just took you stopping for a moment to listen for it to be heard. Such is the way with God (or so goes the belief).

Why do is it matter how the universe operates if god exists outside of the universe and is supernatural.

IOW, you keep talking about how the christian theology lines up perfectly (cough) with what science has learned about the workings of the universe.

But since he exists outside or the universe and is supernatural it doesn't matter how the universe operates to god. Correct ?

I never said anything that happens in the universe "matters" to God. Why would you even make such a statement?

So you don't need to explain how it interacts with us. You can't anyway.

I don't need to explain anything. Again, I am answering your questions regarding my belief to show you that I don't believe in anything that contradicts itself.

Oh here we go. If only we would read the bible we would understand.

Yes, of course - you can't understand any subject matter without studying said subject matter. Why would theologies be any different. You have no idea what the theology is without learning about it from some source. How else would you learn about the ideas at hand?

LOL. Moving goal posts that's all.

Dude, by that definition your statement applies to all of scientific discovery. At one point we thought the fundamental building blocks of matter was the atom. Then it was the proton, neutron, and electron. Then quarks. Then (possibly) strings. It is the nature of mankind to learn more and constantly refines what he knows. Why should spiritual knowledge be any different?

Why don't they just re-write the thing every twenty years or so.

To some degree that is precisely what happens. There are new interpretations, new understandings, new knowledge that occurs all the time. Again, to dismiss religion because it does that but then praise science because it does so is completely hypocritical.

I still don't understand why a omnipotent/supernatural being can't be within the universe or part of it.

It isn't that an omnipotent/supernatural being can't be within the universe; it is that a Creator cannot be part of its Creation. That is the fundamental nature of those words.

So let me ask another way to better define.

God knows all time correct ?

Yes; in fact God created it.

So god knows what our choices are/were/will be correct ?

Yes.

Did god allow us to make our own choice at the time the choice was made or not ?

God didn't do anything "at the time" - he exists outside time. If you are asking if we were allowed to make our own choice, yes of course - did anyone or anything stop you? I read just the other day an excellent quote. "We believe we have free will because we have no other choice."

And was that choice our own choice or is it merely the illusion of a choice, IOW, did god make the choice for us but only allow us to believe we made the choice ?

God cannot make the choice because the very concept of a choice is predicated on a time flow that does not pertain to God. We can only make choices BECAUSE we perceive the flow of time.

That's an odd statement from a christian

Perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to judge all of Christianity based on your experiences so far. I'd be happy to elaborate if you have a specific question regarding this statement.

He fits nicely in your world because you want to believe. However, I will commend you on separating the two to allow reality to enter. IOW, I think people can certainly believe in a god and believe in the sciences. As long as they are willing to allow the discoveries of science to be included.

Of course; anyone who does otherwise is a fool. I have a term for these "Christians" - "Ostrich Christians". They stick their heads in the sand every time anything challenges their beliefs, instead of refining their beliefs to comport with the new knowledge. Scientists sometimes do the same thing, and spend their entire lives operating under a specific theory that is later proven to be false.

And that is fair. If you note, I am not trying to get you to abandon them, just question them.

Believe me, I do enough questioning on my own. One who cannot question his beliefs shows a distinct lack of faith.

And IMO, the key is to address that which does not fit. That is more important to the strength of a postion than that which fits.

I agree 100%.

For example. UFO or ET proponents find all sorts of things to fit in their beliefs and support it. But have a hard time looking at or accepting that which challenges it.

Look at that which challenges the belief and see if it holds water. If it does and you do not move in the direction of stronger or better information then you are on the road to delusionville.

When it comes to ones beliefs, scrutinize the information, then scrutinize and scrutinize some more.

Agreed. I have my own personal quote regarding that: "Those who stop seeking 'The Truth' are guaranteed to never find." I would argue that this applies to both sides of the coin - those who refuse to acknowledge the possibility of God as well as those who refuse to acknowledge the possibility that he does not exist.

 

[SolusCado]

SolusCado,

Let me go further. No sense in talking to you about it if you were a strict creationist. By the way there are christians who believe the bible is the word of god and that it all happened in 6-7 days about 5000 years ago. So you also have an argument with them.

Indeed I do.

Do you believe in other species outside of earth, aliens etc ?

I believe that they are highly likely - to the point that it would be silly to think they don't exist.

So why wouldn't they just write it that way in the first place.

Limited by language. If you look through the first five books of the Bible, you won't find any words that equate to "epoch". We use the term day synonymously as it is, 5,000 years later. I think that over time, "religion" got in the way of the scriptures, and people started (as they still do) stamping their own beliefs onto what was ACTUALLY said, and the message got (as it still doest) warped.

Why do you the believer need to change the book to fit our current understanding ?

Because the book (or to be more precise, the books) were always written at a specific point in time, with full limitation of our knowledge at that point in time. Language has evolved to incorporate new ideas and findings - to expect the original authors to use the terms muon and quark when we didn't have any concept of those is ridiculous. The same thing applies to concepts in natural sciences, cosmology, etc.

Is this not the words of god ?

INSPIRED by God - but the words of men. With all the limitations therein.

Why wouldn't it just say, in the book. Man evolved from lower species to where he is today ? You realize that it in fact says the opposite. That man was created in his image.

Did man know what evolution was at that point in time? How does "man created in his image" mean exactly the opposite of evolution? Also, keep in mind that God exists outside time, and evolution is a time-based concept. For God, the creation of man (and "His Image") might mean anything. Perhaps God Himself evolved from some lesser being, and man was created to follow the same process, and that's what was really meant. I don't know, but my interpretation will continue to grow as my knowledge increases.

You do know that christians had and have historically fought the idea of man evolving from lower species. So why do you think that is ?

Fear of the church. Same reason Gallileo was persecuted, Christopher Columbus was ridiculed, etc. Man constantly gets stuck in his own ideas and preconceptions, and - just as we see run rampant even on this site - has serious difficulty accepting that which challenges them.

You say nobody comes up with an original idea.

So where did you get the idea of days being epochs etc etc so that the discoveries of science fits in with christian creationism.

That's easy - it all stemmed from noticing the discrepancy in case in the KJV translation. It pointed out to me the possibility that the same word may have meant to different things in the two different places, which made me ponder what else it (and other words) may have actually meant. Coupling this with modern cosmology led to an updated interpretation of Genesis that fits perfectly with modern observations. This is the same thing we do with scientific theories.

 

[Emil]

I read just the other day an excellent quote. "We believe we have free will because we have no other choice."

Excellent

 

[wynn]

That's easy - it all stemmed from noticing the discrepancy in case in the KJV translation. It pointed out to me the possibility that the same word may have meant to different things in the two different places, which made me ponder what else it (and other words) may have actually meant.

Consider what the theistic convictions of people in earlier times could have been like, given that they (at least the more educated ones) spoke the original biblical languages and were able to read and study the Bible in the original.

 

[SolusCado]

For starters, it clashes with the theory of evolution. This is a wild idea that you cannot backup with any references or scientific proof. Do you have any biological, historical, or anthropological evidence, anything? If not, then why would I bother to disprove your crazy idea? It's just your idea and there is no logical reason for anyone to believe that is true. Try researching it yourself. If you want to believe it, that’s fine by me, but don’t expect anyone else to take this crap seriously.

Well, the only claims I have made that would be subject to a need for "biological, historical, or anthropological evidence" would seem to be those regarding a genetic relationship between guilt and a moral sense of conscience, to which I would have to refer toy to any of the links found herehttp://www.google.com/m/search?q=anthropological+evolutionary+guilt&aq=f&oq=&aqi=-k0d0t0&fkt=1091&fsdt=29188&csll=&action=&ltoken=20b1794.

If you are referring to something else, you are going to need to tone down the infantile attitude long enough to specifically address that which you find so ridiculous.

 

[SolusCado]

Interesting.

For better or worse Paul, the man who wrote the majority of the new testament, apparently thought it was a literal true story. (1 Corinthians 15:21-22) I guess god hadn't let him in on the whole limited language idea...

There is also a term - "Red lettered Christians" - that refers to a group that don't credit Paul with the same weight the Catholic church did. There are countless figures throughout the history of the church that have had specific beliefs which, while possibly the best guess at the time, are just as subject to the refinement of human knowledge as any other, Paul included.

 

[jpappl]

SolusCado,

Your examples show that the idea was uniquely developed in various locales, not originated. There is a huge difference, and we simply have no way of knowing where the ideas originated.

What I showed is that the ideas were unique to each locale. Which is not what we would see if the original idea was spread. It would be more specific and if we look at christianity, certainly would not entail the worship of only animal or nature gods. But I am done if you are.

I never said anything that happens in the universe "matters" to God. Why would you even make such a statement?

Good because if it is omnipotent it doesn't

Yes, of course - you can't understand any subject matter without studying said subject matter

But we can't know god. Are you claiming that by studying something that is unknown and can not be known is going to advance our understanding about something that can't be known, by definition god can not be known.

“ Originally Posted by jpappl
LOL. Moving goal posts that's all. ”

Dude, by that definition your statement applies to all of scientific discovery. At one point we thought the fundamental building blocks of matter was the atom. Then it was the proton, neutron, and electron. Then quarks. Then (possibly) strings. It is the nature of mankind to learn more and constantly refines what he knows. Why should spiritual knowledge be any different?

No, no, no. Your bible is the word of god. It per the men who are making the claim, is the word of god and explains how we came to be and what it is we are to do or ELSE.

Science has never made such claims without supporting evidence and in many cases can only make best guesses. It is not in the business of making claims when it can not. It is not in the business of making stories.

A specific religion is making the claim that they KNOW how it happened precisely.

The two are completely different in that respect. Which is why religions still struggle with evolution. They just didn't see that one coming.

To some degree that is precisely what happens. There are new interpretations, new understandings, new knowledge that occurs all the time. Again, to dismiss religion because it does that but then praise science because it does so is completely hypocritical.

What's hypocritical is changing or interpreting the so called words of god. Do you believe in God ? or do you only believe in the god of your religion ?

Science by design is to change. There is nothing hypocritical about changes in the world of science.

It isn't that an omnipotent/supernatural being can't be within the universe; it is that a Creator cannot be part of its Creation. That is the fundamental nature of those words.

Why not ?

God didn't do anything "at the time" - he exists outside time. If you are asking if we were allowed to make our own choice, yes of course - did anyone or anything stop you? I read just the other day an excellent quote. "We believe we have free will because we have no other choice."

and

God cannot make the choice because the very concept of a choice is predicated on a time flow that does not pertain to God. We can only make choices BECAUSE we perceive the flow of time.

So again, do we make the choice, which affects things down the line aside from God's input ?

Or do we only have the illusion of making the choice, IOW god makes the choice for us but allows us to believe we are making the choice and thus we can have no affect on our future by our own choice ?

I am not nit-picking, I just want to make sure I am clear on the separation.

“ Originally Posted by jpappl
He fits nicely in your world because you want to believe. However, I will commend you on separating the two to allow reality to enter. IOW, I think people can certainly believe in a god and believe in the sciences. As long as they are willing to allow the discoveries of science to be included. ”

Of course; anyone who does otherwise is a fool. I have a term for these "Christians" - "Ostrich Christians". They stick their heads in the sand every time anything challenges their beliefs, instead of refining their beliefs to comport with the new knowledge. Scientists sometimes do the same thing, and spend their entire lives operating under a specific theory that is later proven to be false.

Yep, humans.

Believe me, I do enough questioning on my own. One who cannot question his beliefs shows a distinct lack of faith.

“ Originally Posted by jpappl
For example. UFO or ET proponents find all sorts of things to fit in their beliefs and support it. But have a hard time looking at or accepting that which challenges it.

Look at that which challenges the belief and see if it holds water. If it does and you do not move in the direction of stronger or better information then you are on the road to delusionville.

When it comes to ones beliefs, scrutinize the information, then scrutinize and scrutinize some more. ”

Agreed. I have my own personal quote regarding that: "Those who stop seeking 'The Truth' are guaranteed to never find." I would argue that this applies to both sides of the coin - those who refuse to acknowledge the possibility of God as well as those who refuse to acknowledge the possibility that he does not exist.

Certainly, and it's not like those who don't believe have never entertained the idea.

I am atheist/agnostic. I don't believe but I can't know. For me to believe I would need the type of evidence to believe such a claim. I have yet to see anything that would convince me.

 

[SolusCado]

Consider what the theistic convictions of people in earlier times could have been like, given that they (at least the more educated ones) spoke the original biblical languages and were able to read and study the Bible in the original.

But still limited to the physical knowledge of the universe of the day.

 

[spidergoat]

...This is why today so many people are in fact capable of saying "what's the difference" between a universe with no God and one with. We are now capable in ways we weren't before to rid ourselves of the psychological poison of guilt without a sacrifice made at a temple.

Religion makes us feel guilty then offers the cure. What a fraud.

 

[wynn]

But still limited to the physical knowledge of the universe of the day.

I don't think this is so important.
What I find of greater importance is the concept of eternal damnation and religious monopoly/exclusivism - the ethical issues.

Note how the notion of eternal damnation is likely due to a poor translation(see here, at 4.2).