See, I’m young (13) so naturally, I’m still in school and learning about the Earth and how and when it was created. That’s where my point of the science connection lays: I’m told one thing in school and another thing in church and by my parents. I was brought up a Catholic and until now I’ve never really questioned belief, but because I’m learning the hows and whats of Earth, I don’t believe- or find it harder to believe. Sorry for not being clear there.
Expand, please. I’m afraid I don’t get your point.
Do you mean to argue that truth is relative?
I dont believe in god…it would take about a month for me to type all of the reasoning behind this (it took me 5 un-interupted hours on the phone), but here are the main points:
If god created everything…then how did he exist before he created everything? Its a parodox!
Technicly in my first statement i lied…i dont believe in god as a thing, but as a belief; the human brain would shrivil up into jelly or something if it didnt have an explanation for something that big…
If god exists then why has my life always sucked so bad?! (this is includeing the time that i did acctually believe in god and go to church)
not sure if i have all the facts right on this one, but ill post it anyway. Adam and Eve had this, i forget the word for it, but anyway it was because of it they didnt where any clothes. so we can all agree that it was a pretty warm climate, corect? If it was a warm climate…then where did the apple tree come from…agian another paradox
all-in-all ive found about 50 paradoxes, and only 17 of them my VERY RELIGIOUS Friend (the kind who speaks his oppinions Very Loudly) could find a mistake in, or throw a paradox back to me with…
what’s going on is that you are being indoctrinated. questioning the secular version of creation is not allowed in school. But question it to yourself.
I was not raised in any sort of faith, but I’m not one to take things at face value either. When I learned about biology in the 10th grade, it occured to me that evolution, while attractive (similarities in skeletal structure, for example), could not explain the genesis of life (a single cell is far too massively complex to have been an accident) or how one thing became another (missing links).
The theory of evolution evolves over time, and some people now talk of spontaneous evolution where single cell creatures become whole organisms with fully developed eyes, skeleton, nervous system, digestion system, etc., etc. almost overnight. (this is required because of the fossil record – stuff appears suddenly in large numbers and disappears just as suddenly.) I ramble, the point is, the more I learned about this sort of thing, the more I realized it was no accident.
Whether you believe in the god of Abraham is another subject, but I find the proof to point to the existence of a creator.
Neat idea. I’ve seen something similar as a science fiction premise (a variant of the “Hivemind” idea), but I’ve never encountered it as an allegory for the mind of God. I like it, I think.
(Never read Chardin, either.)
Looking for god as the “easy way out” will get you nowhere. If that were the case, picking the right religion would be easy… just go with the religous group that is full of sucessful people that get everything they want.
What personal faith boils down to is what one feels within themselves. That is why I don’t think any religon can be forced onto anyone else. Subscribing to the tenants of any religion is what one does because events in their life (justifibly or unjustifibly, it hardly matters) gave them an inner feeling that the path they are choosing is the correct one. Each person must be (and is) allowed to choose their own path. Given, society may try to weigh bias for or against certian paths, but NOTHING governs ones own personal beliefs, faiths, or opinions.
I debated that idea in this thread. The short answer is that subjective truths are indeed relative.
The Goddess never ceases to surprise me; it’s one of her trademarks. “She changes everything she touches.” I could pick her out of any line-up. “That’s her officer, the BEAUTIFUL one.”
“The beautiful ones always hurt you.”~Prince
I think that there is one standard human epiphany, that is, the moment of the apprehension of God. For some this continues through to Union with God. In either case, upon return to “normalcy,” the experience is translated through the belief filter of the conscious mind. A Muslim would recall seeing Allah, Christians saw Christ; Catholics and Witches see the divine as female in Mary and The Goddess. We each encounter the living embodiement of our own most sacred image. Emotionally, the fallout is akin to being “lovestruck.”
I re-red my post and i guess i didnt make it clear that what is implied isnt correct…so for clarification, just because i dont believe in some surpreme being, doesnt mean that i accept the “scientific” version…both have too many flaws for my taste
for me i go for the “poof-everything-came-into-apperance-for-no-good-reason” perspective…from my point of view, it is acctually the least flawed…
before trying to correct me, PLEASE LOOK AT MY SIG
Mithrilhawk, I have questioned the belief of a creator, and I know that schools aren’t supposed to teach the secular version of creation. I’m not very good at making myself clear at this topic. I’ll try: I’ve tried to separating evolution and creation from God partly because I see no proof. Now, I know that I will probably never see proof of God, nor am I looking.
I see the point you are making, and I have never looked at it on that scale. However, did God intend for the single cell to evolve and eventually become creatures of intentional destruction (such as some humans) on the Earth that He supposedly created?
Oh and the point that I was trying to make is that subjective truths should never be passed off as objective truths.
Come to think of it, this may answer the question that Beatlez674 had as well. When you realize that subjective truths do exist, but should not be confused with objective truth, then the dilema of evolution vs creation begins to melt away.
Sorry to nitpick… but the bible doesn’t ever mention an apple tree in the garden of eden. The tree with the fruit has been refered to as an apple, probably just to make the story easier to relate to.
High Diety , that you for your observation…ill make a mental note to scratch that one off my mental list (kept by a mental of course)
MissingDividends wrote:
Not everyone has sigs enabled, Grasshopper.
Me: The story goes like this. God created all these people, but they pissed him off because they misbehaved; so he decides to send down his only son, a Perfect Being, to be horribly, ritually sacrificed TO HIMSELF?! Sounds downright Cthuluesqe if you think about it. It sounds like someone desperate to prove something to himself, not the act of a loving creator. I usually don’t quote so much of someone’s post, but this just resonates quite clearly for me.
As I read the posts I see three types:
-
Those who have deduced the existance of God through logic and reason.
-
Those who have disproven the existance of God throught logic and reason.
-
Those who have experienced God.
Science does not contradict Catholicism unless your parents teach you Biblical literalism, which is consistent with Catholicism, but not required for it. The official position is that the Bible is a theological document, not a historical or scientific document. It speaks inerrently on matters of faith, not on matters of history or science. Some Catholics also believe it also speaks to matters of history and science inerrantly, and therefore disbelieve evolution and whatnot; while perfectly allowable, this is neither encouraged nor required by the Church.
Most Catholics leave nature to science and supernature to the Church. The Catholic Church officially states that “truth cannot contradict truth,” and if you perceive that science contradicts your faith, you may have a misunderstanding of the teachings of the Church or of science or both. You’ll only know if you ask. Since science does not speak to matters of faith, and since the Church does not speak to matter of science (e.g., the type of creation method used by God–Genesis or BigBang/evolution), the two do not contradict each other.
You may want to try out this forum, especially it’s speculation section if you are interested in discussing these issues within a Catholic context (that is, if you are interested in giving your parent’s faith a fair shake). I came to the Straight Dope Message Board as an atheist, and I had much fun discussing religious topics with the varied members here. But as I started to consider belief in God, I realized that the religion of my forefathers was really the only one that interested me, so I began discussing the same issues over there, where I received uniquely Catholic critiques of my views, some of which were surprisingly (at the time, given my recent atheism) intelligent and well thought out. There are some creation vs. evolution, science vs. God threads going on there right now.
Back to the OP for a second 
I believe because I was put in a position where I encountered an entity that my brain could only interpret as divine. As this was an entirely interior monologue, it is easy enough to say it was a sighting of the divine within myself, except that even as it was internal it (she, in this instance) was also separate from me.
That, and I find the universe’s tendency to order rather than entropy a convincing argument for divinity - and yet, not for the J/C/I deity.
anything subjective is relative by definition.
I have observed objective facts and made a subjective deduction. The point of the OP, IMO, seemed to be asking our opinion, which I have provided.
So I ask again, what is your point?
ah, never mind my last post.
Instead, what in my post was subjective?
My point, once again, is that subjective truths should not be passed off as objective truths. I was asking you if you understand that there are others for whom your truths will not apply.