Do You Believe in "God"?

[Corey Taylor]

I do believe in God. but some things that are said to happen when you do some things never happen. Like breaking a ten commandment should get God pissd at you but I have seen any signs of anger yet. And I believe that there is no "right religion". But my belief is that if you are from a religion that believes in many gods and you don't know any better (believing in the one true god) when you die, god will send you to the heaven or eternal life that you believe in. If you believe that you will live with all the gods and serve them when you die, my god is kind enouh to not punish you for not knowing any better so he just makes your religion a reality. Got it?

[D r e a m]

(Looks up) I believe in many things. . .& respect everyone's beliefs & ways.

"Where their are endings. . .their are new beginnings. ."
- D r e a m

[Burning Zeppelin]

In this age of information, there is no excuse for people living in the West to not be informed about religion, and to make an informed decision.

Unless you don't have the net, but hopefully people will follow suit and join Telestra's plan for world domination!

[Romana]

Nah, I don't believe in gawd. The idea of a big bearded dude deciding to make a world one day just cracks me up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang_theory

Big bang, people. Big bang.

[CyberSarkany]

"Big Bang" reminds me of Final Fantasy...
I think I'm gonna replace "God" with something else in my vocabulary...like... "Oh my holy devil" haha

[Daniel Krispin]

Nah, I don't believe in gawd. The idea of a big bearded dude deciding to make a world one day just cracks me up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang_theory

Big bang, people. Big bang.

The the Big Bang theory, unless I'm confused, was thought up by a priest.

[Magus22]

The the Big Bang theory, unless I'm confused, was thought up by a priest.

I think you're right, from Belgium of something.

The Big Bang is the most accurate theory from the creation of the universe. There had to have been some sort of atomic explosion to cause over trillions and trillions of neutrinos to be flying around in space. I don't believe they pinpointed any origin yet. After billions and billions of years until now, it might be a little hard to pin point it . . .

[Radical_Dreamer]

Nah, I don't believe in gawd. The idea of a big bearded dude deciding to make a world one day just cracks me up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang_theory

Big bang, people. Big bang.

The the Big Bang theory, unless I'm confused, was thought up by a priest.

That implies neither theism nor deism.

[Burning Zeppelin]

Nah, I don't believe in gawd. The idea of a big bearded dude deciding to make a world one day just cracks me up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang_theory

Big bang, people. Big bang.

The the Big Bang theory, unless I'm confused, was thought up by a priest.

That implies neither theism nor deism.

It just implies that priests aren't stupid, thoughtless idiots.

[cupn00dles]

Nah, I don't believe in gawd. The idea of a big bearded dude deciding to make a world one day just cracks me up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang_theory

Big bang, people. Big bang.

The the Big Bang theory, unless I'm confused, was thought up by a priest.

That implies neither theism nor deism.

It just implies that priests aren't stupid, thoughtless idiots.

No, it implies that they are smart, thoughtful geniuses.

[Radical_Dreamer]

Nah, I don't believe in gawd. The idea of a big bearded dude deciding to make a world one day just cracks me up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang_theory

Big bang, people. Big bang.

The the Big Bang theory, unless I'm confused, was thought up by a priest.

That implies neither theism nor deism.

It just implies that priests aren't stupid, thoughtless idiots.

No, it implies that they are smart, thoughtful geniuses.

You are both wrong. It implies nothing about priests or the universe in general.

[Daniel Krispin]

What it implies is that the Big Bang and religion are not two opposing viewpoints. You can say 'maybe the priest wasn't religious anymore', but that is a minority assumption. If he is a priest, it is most likely that he was religious. That is the simplest view. And if he is, it shows that religion and science have not always been, nor needn't always be, opposed (in fact, that 'opposition' is just a construct of the last 100 years. After all, some of the deepest thinkers of history, say in ancient Greece, were deeply religious, even while they questioned religion itself.)

The reason I said that is because someone said, instead of believing in God, that they believe in the Big Bang. But that means nothing. I believe in God, but also in the Big Bang.

[grey_the_angel]

I can't believe there's no gaia/enitity option.

[Daniel Krispin]

I can't believe there's no gaia/enitity option.

That falls under the supernatural entities... or, I suppose, natural entities, but for all purposes is supernatural.

[Lord J Esq]

What it implies is that the Big Bang and religion are not two opposing viewpoints. You can say 'maybe the priest wasn't religious anymore', but that is a minority assumption. If he is a priest, it is most likely that he was religious. That is the simplest view. And if he is, it shows that religion and science have not always been, nor needn't always be, opposed (in fact, that 'opposition' is just a construct of the last 100 years. After all, some of the deepest thinkers of history, say in ancient Greece, were deeply religious, even while they questioned religion itself.)

The reason I said that is because someone said, instead of believing in God, that they believe in the Big Bang. But that means nothing. I believe in God, but also in the Big Bang.

You can't do stuff like that without opening a big can of worms. When you start picking and choosing which parts of the Bible you want to take literally, and which parts you want to construe as figurative, a big logical gap opens up: The Bible itself does not provide for such freedom of interpretation, so on whose authority do you declare parts of it to be literal and others not?

If the creation story is not literal, then what about Christ's virginal birth? What about his resurrection? What about the sun standing still in the sky? The five loaves of bread and two fish? Healing the sick? Heaven and Hell? The Trinity itself?

Reasonable minds would look at this book and see all sorts of fibs and make-believe. But the devout cannot give in to that temptation, at least not very much, because it undermines their own worldview. And so good people like you tend to get caught in between...compelled to be reasonable, yet bound not to be.

So, even though religious figures have always been capable of making scientific discoveries, such as was discussed above, they are always constrained in the end. The Big Bang theory, to the extent that it does tread upon Scripture--and it does, unless you are willing to take a big plunge about the Bible's literal veracity--this theory is irreconcilable with the creation story. That the main reason why these scientific fields like cosmology and biology are controversial at all.