180 replies to this topic

[HollowKnight]

I believe in the God of the Bible, and I believe that Jesus is his son. I do, however, believe in evolution and the Big Bang theory as a viable explanation for the distribution of matter in the universe. I see no conflict between the two. Many of the stories and parables in the Bible are metaphors that help create a message or greater or understanding of the morals we should live by. This excludes the resurrection of Jesus, which I believe to be God's manipulation of his foundational laws as a miracle to have Jesus bare the punishment for all our sins, allowing us to go to heaven instead of facing damnation.

In other words, I voted for Religious theistic.

[Eddard McHorn Van-Schnuder]

I find this question really hard to answer truthfully at times. I do not consider myself a christian, nor a very religious person, but I do also find it a little hard to grasp just... "why". As in, why we are here, how that happened and how consciousness can not be the creation of some sort of... I don't know, divine magic?

Don't get me wrong, I both understand and even mostly agree that it probably isn't "because God made it so", but coming from a christian background and all, I still find it a bit hard to let go.

However, my idea of God isn't really an image most christians would agree with. God, to me, is the universe itself. My mother always told me that "God is everywhere, always", and there really isn't anything other than the universe that, to me, match that description. It would also be silly to argue against the fact that the universe created us. Perhaps not "on purpose", but without the universe, we simply would not be. To say that the universe is a "being" of some sort only seems supersticious to me, and to be perfectly honest I don't really care if it is or not. If there's a God, then there's a God. It really does not affect me either way, unless God were to knock at my door one day and... I don't know, affect me or something.

I don't want to call myself religious, so that answers the original question I guess. Do I believe think there might be something 'bigger' out there somewhere? Maybe, as I said it's not an issue that affects me and my life in any way shape or form, so if there's not a God, then there's not a God. If there is a God... good for him.

[NoeL]

I believe in the God of the Bible, and I believe that Jesus is his son. I do, however, believe in evolution and the Big Bang theory as a viable explanation for the distribution of matter in the universe. I see no conflict between the two.

There is a conflict, but I'm not going to discuss it here. If you want to know what it is, PM me.

God, to me, is the universe itself. My mother always told me that "God is everywhere, always", and there really isn't anything other than the universe that, to me, match that description.

So why not just call it "the universe"? Why attach this secondary label that implies so much more than just "the universe"?

[Radien]

So why not just call it "the universe"? Why attach this secondary label that implies so much more than just "the universe"?

Equating God with the entirety of the universe implies a certain consciousness and will behind it. You could say that such a belief dictates that the universe is alive, a distinction that doesn't necessarily go without saying.

For comparison, rocks and human beings are both just collections of matter...but the distinction of each being alive or not is still significant.

Human beings may be alive, but we can be analyzed down to particles, then atoms, then protons/neutrons/electrons, and then quarks, just like everything else. Similarly, perhaps everything in the universe is a tiny part of something much bigger -- something that is alive and conscious. That isn't implied by simply calling everything "the universe."

...Don't get me wrong, though: I know people who DO refer to "the Universe" in place of the name of any particular deity. Some of them literally mean "everything in existence," and some mean "the conscious universe that acts as my deity." It's largely semantics, either way, but there is some reasoning behind it.


Edit because I have a potential answer for Ebola's question...

Something I have been wondering; what qualifies as religious, but non-theistic? If you were an agnostic that still went to church every Sunday, would that put you in that camp?

Well, I know one possible interpretation would be that you believe in spirituality, and something beyond the human consciousness, but not necessarily anything that you would classify as a deity. I'm not sure whether that's the ONLY thing that counts -- in fact, I'm fairly sure that there are a number of different belief systems that could be classified as "religious, non-theistic" -- but it's probably one of the more common ones in that category.

[NoeL]

Similarly, perhaps everything in the universe is a tiny part of something much bigger -- something that is alive and conscious. That isn't implied by simply calling everything "the universe."

It's not NOT implied. There's nothing in the definition of "the universe" that would prevent it from being conscious.

But anyway, this sort of comes back to a discussion I was having with sigatu about words and meanings. If you're going to assume some consciousness to the universe then "God" is fair enough word to use, sure. But there are people like Spinoza and Einstein that refer to the universe as "God" in lieu of any beliefs of consciousness - they simply call it that because of its order and awe-inspiringness. Those people (i.e. pantheists), in my opinion, are silly

[Eddard McHorn Van-Schnuder]

There is a conflict, but I'm not going to discuss it here. If you want to know what it is, PM me.

So why not just call it "the universe"? Why attach this secondary label that implies so much more than just "the universe"?

Oh no, I'm not. I'm just saying that in my opinion, "God" is the universe itself. I never call it anything else, except when discussing stuff like this, in which case it is only to explain what I mean, and not to make it seem like I "believe" in "the universe" as a deity. I don't.

[Cosmic Kid]

Regularly attend a church or other place of worship in order to worship or participate in religious activities.
Hold beliefs that conform to a specific religion (e.g. the belief that Jesus is the son of God).
You are theistic if you:
Believe in the existence of one or more gods, regardless of whether or not you worship them. This includes deists.
EDIT: Clarified further.

So what you're saying is that being theistic but not religious is pretty much being agnostic?

Edited by TwilightZora, 28 July 2011 - 11:15 AM.

[Sheik]

How's that? Agnosticism is not about believeing in gods but not worshipping them. Agnosticism is an understanding centered around the idea that the human can't know wether god exists or wether god not exists. That's everything.

NoeL's defintion of theistic (plus non-religious) would for example suit Buddhism. Buddhists believe that gods and deities exist but they don't worship them. They pretty much centre their whole practice around the concept of enlightening.

[Cosmic Kid]

Well it's still hard to fit agnosticism in there because in context, it seems that someone who is not religious or theistic would be an atheist.

[Radien]

It's not NOT implied. There's nothing in the definition of "the universe" that would prevent it from being conscious.

But anyway, this sort of comes back to a discussion I was having with sigatu about words and meanings. If you're going to assume some consciousness to the universe then "God" is fair enough word to use, sure. But there are people like Spinoza and Einstein that refer to the universe as "God" in lieu of any beliefs of consciousness - they simply call it that because of its order and awe-inspiringness. Those people (i.e. pantheists), in my opinion, are silly

Not not implied? What I'm getting at is that you say "universe," no one can assume whether you believe it's conscious or not. So why not state those beliefs outright, if it comes up?

Yeah, I know all about the people who use the word "God" for impact. My sister and I have been watching Through the Wormhole, a series of documentaries hosted by Morgan Freeman (cool stuff), and they uses phrases like "a glimpse into the Mind of God" and stuff like that.

I suppose some people may be like me, and think that God and the universe are one in the same.... but if you don't actually believe that, using the word "God" for its sense of grandeur... yeah, it's kinda silly.

Well it's still hard to fit agnosticism in there because in context, it seems that someone who is not religious or theistic would be an atheist.

The reason it's so hard to fit agnosticism into any one category is because it basically staying "decidedly undecided."

An agnostic basically says "I won't decide on any one set of beliefs, because I really don't have any place pretending that I could ever know which is right, if any of them are."

[NoeL]

it seems that someone who is not religious or theistic would be an atheist.

Ok, you've basically got two axes - belief and knowledge. Theism/atheism (or non-theism) goes along one axis (belief) and gnosticism/agnosticism goes along the other (knowledge). If you KNOW God exists you are a gnostic theist. If you BELIEVE God exists but don't KNOW God exists you are an agnostic theist (likewise, if you don't believe and don't know you're an agnostic atheist, and if you don't believe and claim to know you're a gnostic atheist). Contrary to popular belief, agnosticism isn't the middle ground between theism and atheism, it's merely stating a lack of knowledge (usually referring to the existence of God). One can believe we can't know at the moment (weak agnostic) or they can believe we can't know ever (strong agnostic, like Sheik appears to be).

You can be agnostic yet still believe one way or the other (for example, I believe extra-terrestrial life exists, but since I have no knowledge of their existence I'm also agnostic about their existence). If you happen to be in a position where you don't believe in God, nor do you believe in the non-existence of God (i.e. you have no belief either way), you are still a non-theist (or atheist, if you're using a broad definition) because you lack that positive belief required to be a theist.

So really, an agnostic can go in either category, but if you have no opinion on whether or not God exists you're a non-theist.

NoeL's defintion of theistic (plus non-religious) would for example suit Buddhism. Buddhists believe that gods and deities exist but they don't worship them. They pretty much centre their whole practice around the concept of enlightening.

You got that back-to-front. Buddhists are religious but non-theistic. They believe in karma and balance and reincarnation and a bunch of other woo woo but they don't believe in deities.

Not not implied? What I'm getting at is that you say "universe," no one can assume whether you believe it's conscious or not. So why not state those beliefs outright, if it comes up?

Saying "I believe God exists" carries a much different meaning to saying "I believe the universe is conscious". That's where my beef is with pantheists. The word "God" implies a deity, and if you don't actually believe in deities it's somewhat misleading to use the term "God" when referring to the universe. Why not just say "I believe the universe exists, and that it is conscious"?

Edited by NoeL, 29 July 2011 - 02:51 AM.

[Sheik]

Oh, you are right, how did I mix that up again? Well, what I ment was what NoeL said :>

[Cosmic Kid]

No, I'm aware of what agnosticism is, I am an agnostic. I'm just saying that it's kind of hard to fit it into the poll here because of the choices.

[Majora]

I've got better things to do than succumb to fantasy-induced neurosis.