How many of you believe in God?

College Confidential Community
621

<p>
[quote]
The scientist's guess is as good as the priest's!

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It's certainly a far better "guess." Read up on abiogenesis - the actual theory that deals with the beginning of life. It's certainly a more interesting area of science. But it doesn't rely on blind guesses or magical creatures.</p>

<p>
[quote]
but i bet you rarely, if ever, thank him for the good things that happen.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Luckily for us atheists, we don't have to thank or blame god, since there is no such thing.</p>

<p>
[quote]
how many people do you think refrained from killing others or themselves because of "divine" intervention or their religion?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think none personally. If they stop themselves from killing, it's due to their own sense of morality, which would be there regardless of religion. You don't need to believe in the big ghost in the sky to understand that killing another person is wrong.</p>

622

<p>lets see...first of all tetrahedron the "but I bet you rarely, if ever, thank him for the good things that happen" wasnt directed towards 'you atheists'. if you read the statement in its entirety you wouldve seen the part where it said, "if you believe in God". obviously if you're atheist you dont believe in God. And if you don't believe in God, the statement directed to those who do believe in God would not apply to you, and therefore I dont see the point of you commenting on it. so i would love to know the point if there is one, which i doubt as it wasnt directed towards you in the first place... :)</p>

<p>dont you think some morals are linked to religion. take myself for example...im catholic...and while i dont follow everything the church may say, it has definitely influenced the way i see things, and my morals. now everyone's different, but you cant just throw out religion when it comes to morals, and therefore cant throw out religion when it comes to suicide or murder. and im not saying people who dont believe in God dont know that murder is wrong. that'd be a stupid thing to believe. i'm just saying that people do stop killing because of it. and i know someone who didnt commit suicide because they "found" God or whatever you want to say. It's an alternative. They found God as an alternative to the difficulties they were facing. God was in their newfound religion. therefore religion did play factor in it...so there's one person who refrained from suicide because of their religion...</p>

<p>i think religion is a part of who someone is, and thus affects their morals. even you as an atheist have a religion. religion can be seen as any system of belief or worship. you believe there is nothing to worship. that is your religion. 'getting' a religion can also be defined as 'To resolve to end one's immoral behavior'... and that definition clearly says there's a link between the two...and that definition is one of Websters... now Webster could be wrong...but im not about to contradict him....</p>

623

<p>thesloc:</p>

<p>"I find it very ridiculous how people just "pick" a religioin...I don't understand...My family has been christian for generations...what is the world coming too? Certain destruction, just like time of Noah."</p>

<p>*boisterous laugh</p>

624

<p>Alot of this are the same arguments over and over again. If anyone's really curious about this, I recommend reading Lee Strobel's "the Case for Faith", which is a thoroughly logical approach to the skeptical questions written by a reporter who used to be an atheist before he wrote the other book, "The Case for Christ". The book has flaws, in my opinion as it relies too much on evidence, since "religion" is really a personal relationship and it takes both evidence and emotions to understand it.</p>

<p>Among the issues addressed are:
1) Since evil and suffering exist, a loving God cannot
2) Since miracles contradict science, they cannot be true
3) Evolution explains life, so God isn't needed
4) God isn't worthy of worship if He kills innocent children
5) It's offensive to claim Jesus is the only way to God
6) A loving God would never torture people in Hell
7) Church history is littered with oppression and violence
8) I Still have doubts, so i can't be a Christian</p>

<p>I also don't see any problems in picking a religion. I was raised practically all my life as an atheist. In my view, religion does not have a meaning if someone baptized you at birth against your will; nor will it "save" you like some exasperated parents think if you just go through the motions of Confirmation while not believing anything at all.</p>

625

<p>Hm.. personally I am agnostic at this point. I tried being religious and all during junior high/freshman year, and when my friends attempt to take me to church with them now, I have more of a been there done that, didn't work for me attitude. </p>

<p>Anyway... I was just wondering if you all have been forced into reading Paradise Lost by John Milton for school, and your thoughts on it. My english teacher this year, (I'm a junior) spent a good deal of first semester on it, which meant my particpation points when whoooooosh down the drain. I didn't feel like arguing with all the Christians about why I don't see the Bible as proof for God because I don't believe in him really. However, the book raises interesting points about what people believed then and now I guess. </p>

<p>Oh, and I had another question for people who came to believe in God on their own. What EXACTLY changed your mind? If it wasn't in your family for generations and generations and you were born going to church blablablablablabla why did you change your mind?</p>

626

<p>I disagree with you, Trancestorm. I truly believe the Protestant Reformation shed light upon a dark Europe. Before the Protestant Reformation, all people except the clergy were not to own a Bible nor read one. Most of the Bibles written during this time were the Latin Vulgate with which most people could not read. People were taught that indulgences and "good works" brought one to heaven. Education was reserved for the wealthy and predominately males. However, as the Protestant R. continued, the literacy rate rose drastically thanks to popular education. People, such as William Tyndale, translated the Bible into his countries native tounges so that people could read the word of God for themselves. People began to realize that faith was required to enter heaven. As the RC church declined, the Protestants rose.
If anything, the Italian renaissance had more detriments than benefits. Ideas of Aristotle and others began to take hold of Italian universities during the Renaissance. Petrachan ideas began to permeate all of Italy. Aristotle, if you recall, had some ridiculous philosophies. If anything, Europe took a step back during this time. Art during the Renaissance was simple and basic. The painters of many of the works of this time did not even have three-dimensional quality. Yes, some scientific progress was accomplished, but not to the extent of many years to come. Really, the only work which had lasting importance during this time was "The Prince" by Machiavelli(SP?).
Bottom line, the Bible and Christianity had more affect on human history than any other idea, religion, or philosophy. Thank-you, Emperor Constantine I of Rome for introducing Christianity to a lost Europe.</p>

627

<p>Wow, Incamera. I am surprised that a liberal public school would even allow you to read a book like Paradise Lost. I mean, that is like a Public school teaching the Bible.</p>

628

<p>thesloc reminds me of a young Pat Robertson.</p>

629

<p>It's sad how most people in the world are wrong about religion... no matter who is actually right!</p>

630

<p>consgraf "those of you who say that religion has created sooooo much trouble for the world...what about the good that has come of it? how many people do you think refrained from killing others or themselves because of "divine" intervention or their religion? probly a lot more than we will ever know. i suppose you are also the people, that if you believe in God, you have no problem blaming God for everything bad that happens. you are constantly asking why bad things happen and why evil exists, since he's love after all. but i bet you rarely, if ever, thank him for the good things that happen."</p>

<p>from a utilitarian standpoint, i am almost sure that religion has killed more people than it has saved (with religious wars that persist even today), but I guess that is something we will never find out. You seem to assume that religion is the only source of morality. I disagree; people can and will act morally even with a lack of religion because social morals are evident. Moral revalations need not be religious.</p>

<p>Justinian: The only thing that the reformation did was to correct the abuses of an already corrupt agent of christianity (the catholic church). The effects that came out of it were not righteous but rather long overdue. Additionally, if you think that the reformation improved the quality of life for the average peasant, I (as would most European Historians) would disagree with you. Concepts of free education did not come up till the Renaissance. And it was not taught that indulgences were good. Friar Tetzels scheme was not a widely preached doctrine.</p>

<p>You say that "Italian renaissance had more detriments than benefits." That is another point where i can say with certainty that you are flat out wrong. No rational historianwould doubt that the Italian Renaissance was the first period of prosperity since well before the 1300s. This was, in fact, the time when business started to flourish, and people started to become knowledgable about the world, and take an interest in education. </p>

<p>I somehow seem not to recall the "ridiculous philosophies" of Aristotle. Could you tell them to me?</p>

<p>Justinian: "during the Renaissance was simple and basic. The painters of many of the works of this time did not even have three-dimensional quality. "</p>

<p>Wow! you are definitely joking right?<br>
The sistine chapel by michelangelo
The last supper by da vinci
The school of athens by raphael<br>
The numerous sculptures by michelangelo and others</p>

<p>Now compare these to pre renaissance artists like duccio, giotto, and cimabue. Then tell me what is simple and lacks 3d perspective. </p>

<p>The renassance was the first time when man was portrayed in all his glory. It is characteristic for the details which pre renaissance art deliberately omitted (to place less emphasis on the man). Intricate paintings and statues were absent from pre renassance art. </p>

<p>To say that renaissance art was simple (especiaqlly compared to pre renaissance art) is wrong.</p>

<p>Justinian : "Yes, some scientific progress was accomplished, but not to the extent of many years to come"</p>

<p>Well, ok. Science must be built up. But tell me how the protestant or RC church helped science. Rather, what helped science more, the renaissance or the chuch (protestant or RC). </p>

<p>It seems as though you have the entire humanist renaissance movement all wrong. It was atime when people began persuing secular interests. This was the time at which the quality of life actually rose. Secular advancements (of this time and of the future) did more for quality of life (in the present world at least) than protestantism or RC had ever or could ever do. </p>

<p>You say the Prince was the only significant piece of work comign out of the renaissance. Though i disagree, if i were to follow this assumption, the reason why the Prince is so significant is that it was the First written SECULAR treatise on politics.</p>

<p>The whole spirit of the renaissance (undoubtedly a time of prosperity) was less emphasis on religion and more emphasis on self. </p>

<p>Justinian: "Bottom line, the Bible and Christianity had more affect on human history than any other idea, religion, or philosophy."
THat is subjective...I personally disagree. I would even go so far as to say that Aristotles Nicomacean Ethics are the foundations of social morality.</p>

<p>THere are many ideas more profound than christianity; the scientific theory, sentiment of skepticism, ...many many more.</p>

<p>Besides, historically speaking, it seems that the only effects of christianity (other than the spreading of already existing social morals) were adverse. Not to say that christian philosophy is regressive, but the effects it had on european society were certainly regressive.</p>

631

<p>trance - you seem to like to believe that for the so called religious wars, only religion was the reason they exist. i believe that the majority of these wars wouldve taken place no matter what. maybe for their morals??? for freedom, for land, for power...whatever...religion could just as easily be seen as an excuse to get more people involved...its easy to get people to defend their faith...not so easy to get them to give their lives just to get the leader more land... and maybe i'm wrong...but i dont think all "religion wars" are only due to religion...and i think many of them wouldve went on to some extent, religion involved or not.</p>

<p>i never said that morals "are" religion, and religion "are" morals, like you claim i have said..."you assume that religion is the only source of morality". if you would have read the post that i wrote in reply to tetra's post, you would have seen that i just think religion can, and does affect one's morals. it doesnt make one's morals, but i find it hard to believe that someone can really separate many of their morals from their religion. for some people, certain religions seem right because of their morals...obviously there is a link among them. so i'll reiterate my point - religion affects one's morals....it's not the sole source of them</p>

632

<p>other social factors defintiely take some blame, but religion is more often than not a motive (even in the old days...the crusades, the inquisition...social unrest due to religion).</p>

<p>"religion affects one's morals....it's not the sole source of them"</p>

<p>thank you for the clarification... You said "dont you think some morals are linked to religion" which caused some confusion to me.</p>

<p>I disagree with the statement that religion affects one's morals. I think that morality in the contemporary view of it, has absolutely nothing to do with religion. The only thing that dictates morals are society; religion merely plants social morals into individuals (often calling the morals their own). NAme one thing a christian would find immoral that an atheist would find moral (in terms of social welfare). If it isdifficult to separate morals from ones religion as you say, what of the atheist? Are atheists inherently less moral? I guess if religion influenced SOME morals,either way the atheists would lack some morals that the theist has.</p>

633

<p>once again you think that im saying religion defines someone's morals. they dont..but they can be, and for me they are, a factor. if i say that all christians have this moral, but atheists dont, im contradicting my first post... you cant base your thoughts of one religion on the individual, and you can't judge an individual on their religion. everyone is different. but for some, myself included, religion does play a factor in my morals. example: you say that society is the only thing that affects one's morals? so how do you explain the difference in people's beliefs in chastity. if society was the sole reason for everyone's morals, wouldnt everyone have the same morals? and this is obviously not true whatsoever...some people take chastity to be an extremely important moral...dont believe in premarital sex, wearing certain clothes, partaking in certain behaviors, etc...while some people dont find this to be really important...for me, my religion has shown me that chastity is important...and if you say that only society dictates morals, how do you explain the difference among people...obviously there is something more than just society....for some people that something is religion...you cant look at this as a whole...you need to take into account that some people's morals are affected by their religion..and therefore religion can affects people's morals...not everybody's, but somebodys...</p>

634

<p>Trancestorm,Aristotle claimed to the geocentric view of the universe. Aristotle did not comply to the scientific method, but instead to use mans reasoning which often is false. During the Renaissance, Greek philosophy was put on a pedestal. When you read Bible, all of the scientific statements are true. Take for example, The life of the flesh is in the Blood. George Washington was killed because of excess bleeding, not accidental but purposely. The Bible says that the ocean has currents, yet it wasn't until the 1800s to realize this fact. The earth is suspended in space says the Bible.
Friar Tetzel's doctrine was not followed? I wonder why the RC church was one of the wealthiest organizations in the world. "Once the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs" said Tetzel
Popular Education was advocated by Martin Luther. After the PR, multitudes of people became literate.
Your High School history textbook probably worships such men as Raphael and Michelangelo. Though great artists, they were few and far between during the renaissance. Giotto wasn't pre-Renaissance, my friend. He was a Renaissance artist, indeed. Take a look at his work Lamentation and you will find his work rather simplistic and dull. Botticelli is nothing great either.
To reiterate again, People in the R only imitated earlier Greek works like Petrach. They really were just replicates of Greek writing, nothing new.
In a sense, I can't persuade you to believe in Christianity. You have your mind set on another religion , and thats fine. But throughout your posts, you continue to bring up the RC church. I agree with that the RC was corrupt and wrong, however this particular faith does not encompass all of Christianity. I am Methodist. We don't sell indulgences, believe in transubstatiation, and beg for forgiveness to a priest. I don't agree with the Catholics, Trancestorm. The Protestants didn't hinder Europe though, The Catholics did, IMO.</p>

635

<p>Trancestorm, If you disagree about ones religion affecting morals, then look at the French revolution. During this time, Christianity was nearly extinguished and atheism flourished in France. I guess morals and atheism went well together in France as people watched others be beheaded for entertainment as they ate their Croissant. It is said that people would not even glance at the beheadings as they were used to this savagery. I guess the ancient Aztecs religion affected the morals as they would rip out the heart of a live human and offer it to the Gods. Christians, however, are hard workers, are peaceful, helpful, and loving.</p>

636

<p>"Christians, however, are hard workers, are peaceful, helpful, and loving."</p>

<p>Never speak again please. By characterizing an entire group like this you have shown your bias, and your ignorance. Thanks for playing, though.</p>

637

<p>When judging the work of a person, it must be taken in perspective of the times. Sure, by modern times, Aristotle seems primative, but his work was one of the foundations of modern day reasoning and ethics. Concepts such as the Golden means, Nicomacean Ethics, and his concept of reason (and conception of logic for that matter) were absolutely necessary for progression. Sure, aristotle did not think of the scientific theory, but that was not revealed until the enlightenment. In short, i am not convinced on your arguments on why Aristotle ws a detriment. Also, i dont believe the geocentric view of the earth (which the church refused to concede till 1992) was concieved (formally) till ptolemy.</p>

<p>Actually, GIATTO WAS A PRE RENAISSANCE ARTIST <a href="http://arthistory.about.com/library/artists/bymovement/blproren_artists.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://arthistory.about.com/library/artists/bymovement/blproren_artists.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Duccio was pre renaissance:
<a href="http://arthistory.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=arthistory&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wga.hu%2Fframes-e.html%3F%2Fhtml%2Fd%2Fduccio%2Fbuoninse%2Fmaesta%2F%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://arthistory.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=arthistory&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wga.hu%2Fframes-e.html%3F%2Fhtml%2Fd%2Fduccio%2Fbuoninse%2Fmaesta%2F&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Now look at renaissance artists</p>

<p>boticelli was early renaissance, but still (look at Birth of Venus). You cant say he is nothing great comparing this to ANY (I stand by this statement) pre renaissance artist. Take a look at the sculptures of other early renaissance artists. </p>

<p>Donatello:
<a href="http://arthistory.about.com/cs/namesdd/p/donatello.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://arthistory.about.com/cs/namesdd/p/donatello.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Then the big 3 of the high renaissance</p>

<p>Raphael</p>

<p><a href="http://arthistory.about.com/cs/namesrr/p/raphael.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://arthistory.about.com/cs/namesrr/p/raphael.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Michelangelo
<a href="http://arthistory.about.com/cs/namesmm/a/michelangelo.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://arthistory.about.com/cs/namesmm/a/michelangelo.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Da Vinci
<a href="http://arthistory.about.com/cs/namesdd/a/leonardo.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://arthistory.about.com/cs/namesdd/a/leonardo.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>I could go on naming renaissance artists, but look at some artwork before the renaissance. They cannot compare. there is no dispute that the renaissance was a time of progression. There is no doubt, among anyone who knows a bit of european history, that renaissance art was more complex and more humanlike than the rigid, 2D pre renaissance art.</p>

<p>Your statments, at best, reflect an ignorance of history.</p>

<p>And as for the scientific justifications in the bible...do not forget all of the non scientific things that the bible suggests...geocentricism, creationism, need i say more? :)</p>

<p>Also, i doubt RC exorts the selling of indulgences...that was a fault of implementation.</p>

638

<p>I think it should be "Christians are SUPPOSED TO BE hardworking, peaceful, helpful, and loving."</p>

<p>There are too many maniacs running around under the Christian banner, the Klan, the Crusades, and those people who bomb abortion clinics, for example. You can't judge a religion based on its human representatives on earth, especially not Christianity, which even acknowledges that all humans - believers included - are sinful. In fact, Christianity is really only about two things: a) admit you're a sinner and b) be willing to change your ways through Christ.</p>

639

<p>
[quote]
Luckily for us atheists, we don't have to thank or blame god, since there is no such thing.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The only thing that doesnt exist is YOUR common sense!</p>

640

<p>For Cong... </p>

<p>Sure, people walk around without being adequately clothed and have pre marital sex, etc (acts that you would not do having christian morals).</p>

<p>Do you assume that all the people doing those things are non christian? </p>

<p>You say there is more than society, but look at our society in the US.
The overwhelming majority of people in the United States are Christian, yet premarital sex is rising and there is a continuous trend towards "nonchristian" behavior. </p>

<p>To put it simply, christians are having premarital sex, dressing in provocative clothing, and partaking in risky behavior at the same (if not higher) rate than those of other religions. How can you then draw a distinction to religious morals?</p>

<p>Also do not assume that an atheist parent would let their child partake in all the behavior you mentioned. </p>

<p>The distinction is purely societal morals. Some regions have different morals than others; such is dictated by society.</p>