Why do most people believe in heaven?

  • 94 results
  • 1
  • 2
#51 Posted by comp_atkins (31328 posts) -

@johnd13 said:

This sums it up pretty good. I, for one, would prefer heaven than eternal nothingness.

Why? What is appealing about being conscious for an infinite length of time? I can see the appeal of being conscious for an incredibly long period of time (i.e. like an elf), but not infinite.

seriously. i think you'd pretty much go insane after the first few million years... if you even make it that far.

so can you kill yourself in heaven if you're tired of eternity? can you get kicked out of heaven or once you're in you're golden?

#52 Posted by alim298 (1317 posts) -

Living in paradise is different from living in this world you know. A kid in his mother's womb has no idea of some of the great things he will be able to do once he gets out of the womb. He can "see" things, "walk" the earth, "learn" literature "socialize" etc. Things that are basically unimaginable if you're in your mother's womb. Same is with this world. Many of the wonders of afterlife (and I must say "essential" wonders) can't be understood unless you actually experience them yourself. No hunger, Gardens, eternal life etc. are just a glimpse of what it's like to live in paradise.

#53 Edited by udUbdaWgz1 (631 posts) -

as usual, with these types of questions the obvious and simple is the answer.

people believe in heaven because they have a personal relationship with god through jesus that shatters the fact that god doesn't (mostly) appear before our eyes or speak (mostly) audibly before us.

it's a basic fact.

people who do not have a relationship with god cannot come to grips with the reality of his existence.

do i wish god would work differently? lol, of course.

something to consider for those who don't have a personal relationship with god: get a clue and realize god doesn't exist or cease to exist based on your faith or lack thereof and this issue forces one with critical thought to take this matter seriously.

#54 Posted by johnd13 (8073 posts) -

@foxhound_fox said:

@johnd13 said:

This sums it up pretty good. I, for one, would prefer heaven than eternal nothingness.

Why? What is appealing about being conscious for an infinite length of time? I can see the appeal of being conscious for an incredibly long period of time (i.e. like an elf), but not infinite.

seriously. i think you'd pretty much go insane after the first few million years... if you even make it that far.

so can you kill yourself in heaven if you're tired of eternity? can you get kicked out of heaven or once you're in you're golden?

Like I said in an earlier post, going to heaven means leaving behind your mortal self. So isn't it natural to assume that you'll also ascend to a higher state of existence? In which you will perceive immortality in a whole different way than now that you can not even begin to comprehend. In other words, if God intends us to spend eternity with Him in heaven isn't it safe to assume that He has thought through the whole "immortality will end up tiring"?

#55 Posted by comp_atkins (31328 posts) -

@johnd13 said:

@comp_atkins said:

@foxhound_fox said:

@johnd13 said:

This sums it up pretty good. I, for one, would prefer heaven than eternal nothingness.

Why? What is appealing about being conscious for an infinite length of time? I can see the appeal of being conscious for an incredibly long period of time (i.e. like an elf), but not infinite.

seriously. i think you'd pretty much go insane after the first few million years... if you even make it that far.

so can you kill yourself in heaven if you're tired of eternity? can you get kicked out of heaven or once you're in you're golden?

Like I said in an earlier post, going to heaven means leaving behind your mortal self. So isn't it natural to assume that you'll also ascend to a higher state of existence? In which you will perceive immortality in a whole different way than now that you can not even begin to comprehend. In other words, if God intends us to spend eternity with Him in heaven isn't it safe to assume that He has thought through the whole "immortality will end up tiring"?

but doesn't religion teach that your body will be restored to you? shit jesus supposedly ascendeded corporeally. also, if the whole matter of my existence changes once i reach a higher state of existence, i'll cease to be the same person. so who is in heaven at that point?

#56 Posted by johnd13 (8073 posts) -

@johnd13 said:

@comp_atkins said:

@foxhound_fox said:

@johnd13 said:

This sums it up pretty good. I, for one, would prefer heaven than eternal nothingness.

Why? What is appealing about being conscious for an infinite length of time? I can see the appeal of being conscious for an incredibly long period of time (i.e. like an elf), but not infinite.

seriously. i think you'd pretty much go insane after the first few million years... if you even make it that far.

so can you kill yourself in heaven if you're tired of eternity? can you get kicked out of heaven or once you're in you're golden?

Like I said in an earlier post, going to heaven means leaving behind your mortal self. So isn't it natural to assume that you'll also ascend to a higher state of existence? In which you will perceive immortality in a whole different way than now that you can not even begin to comprehend. In other words, if God intends us to spend eternity with Him in heaven isn't it safe to assume that He has thought through the whole "immortality will end up tiring"?

but doesn't religion teach that your body will be restored to you? shit jesus supposedly ascendeded corporeally. also, if the whole matter of my existence changes once i reach a higher state of existence, i'll cease to be the same person. so who is in heaven at that point?

I'm talking strictly mentally and spiritually regardless of what happens to your body. You'll still be you but as immortal you'll no longer be troubled by worries that follow you now like weariness and boredom. The contact with God alone will have a huge impact on the way you view existence. And I repeat, this is just speculation.

#57 Posted by comp_atkins (31328 posts) -

@johnd13 said:

@comp_atkins said:

@johnd13 said:

@comp_atkins said:

@foxhound_fox said:

@johnd13 said:

This sums it up pretty good. I, for one, would prefer heaven than eternal nothingness.

Why? What is appealing about being conscious for an infinite length of time? I can see the appeal of being conscious for an incredibly long period of time (i.e. like an elf), but not infinite.

seriously. i think you'd pretty much go insane after the first few million years... if you even make it that far.

so can you kill yourself in heaven if you're tired of eternity? can you get kicked out of heaven or once you're in you're golden?

Like I said in an earlier post, going to heaven means leaving behind your mortal self. So isn't it natural to assume that you'll also ascend to a higher state of existence? In which you will perceive immortality in a whole different way than now that you can not even begin to comprehend. In other words, if God intends us to spend eternity with Him in heaven isn't it safe to assume that He has thought through the whole "immortality will end up tiring"?

but doesn't religion teach that your body will be restored to you? shit jesus supposedly ascendeded corporeally. also, if the whole matter of my existence changes once i reach a higher state of existence, i'll cease to be the same person. so who is in heaven at that point?

I'm talking strictly mentally and spiritually regardless of what happens to your body. You'll still be you but as immortal you'll no longer be troubled by worries that follow you now like weariness and boredom. The contact with God alone will have a huge impact on the way you view existence. And I repeat, this is just speculation.

i guess since it's all speculation anyway we can just say "that wouldn't be an issue, it's been figured out already" and be on our way :P

#58 Posted by johnd13 (8073 posts) -

@johnd13 said:

@comp_atkins said:

@johnd13 said:

@comp_atkins said:

@foxhound_fox said:

@johnd13 said:

This sums it up pretty good. I, for one, would prefer heaven than eternal nothingness.

Why? What is appealing about being conscious for an infinite length of time? I can see the appeal of being conscious for an incredibly long period of time (i.e. like an elf), but not infinite.

seriously. i think you'd pretty much go insane after the first few million years... if you even make it that far.

so can you kill yourself in heaven if you're tired of eternity? can you get kicked out of heaven or once you're in you're golden?

Like I said in an earlier post, going to heaven means leaving behind your mortal self. So isn't it natural to assume that you'll also ascend to a higher state of existence? In which you will perceive immortality in a whole different way than now that you can not even begin to comprehend. In other words, if God intends us to spend eternity with Him in heaven isn't it safe to assume that He has thought through the whole "immortality will end up tiring"?

but doesn't religion teach that your body will be restored to you? shit jesus supposedly ascendeded corporeally. also, if the whole matter of my existence changes once i reach a higher state of existence, i'll cease to be the same person. so who is in heaven at that point?

I'm talking strictly mentally and spiritually regardless of what happens to your body. You'll still be you but as immortal you'll no longer be troubled by worries that follow you now like weariness and boredom. The contact with God alone will have a huge impact on the way you view existence. And I repeat, this is just speculation.

i guess since it's all speculation anyway we can just say "that wouldn't be an issue, it's been figured out already" and be on our way :P

Agreed. We'll settle this once we're in heaven. =P

#59 Posted by Kenocratic (92 posts) -

Well I'm a very big fan of landscapes. So from what I've read in my younger days brought up as a Lutheran there are plenty of meadows and hills and such in heaven. I could sit all day just looking at them. Point: I wouldn't get bored.

#60 Posted by JohnF111 (14088 posts) -

Yeah it's a load of BS. What if someone you loved dearly went to hell and you to heaven, so you're supposed to suffer in heaven without your loved ones for eternity? How does that work. Stupid religious hocus pocus.

#61 Edited by Korvus (3528 posts) -

@JohnF111 said:

Yeah it's a load of BS. What if someone you loved dearly went to hell and you to heaven, so you're supposed to suffer in heaven without your loved ones for eternity? How does that work. Stupid religious hocus pocus.

Since you're supposedly always happy in Heaven I'd think you wouldn't give a crap that your wife is being tortured in Hell for eternity...nice, huh?

#62 Edited by JohnF111 (14088 posts) -

@korvus said:

@JohnF111 said:

Yeah it's a load of BS. What if someone you loved dearly went to hell and you to heaven, so you're supposed to suffer in heaven without your loved ones for eternity? How does that work. Stupid religious hocus pocus.

Since you're supposedly always happy in Heaven I'd think you wouldn't give a crap that your wife is being tortured in Hell for eternity...nice, huh?

Well it would another form of torture to use against said wife; "your husband has been forced to forget you and your suffering against his will, he has no emotion towards you any more" sincer her emotions would only be bad ones in hell.

Ah... I'm rather quite happy when discussing religion.

#63 Posted by Korvus (3528 posts) -
#64 Posted by thegerg (15030 posts) -

Because they were introduced to the concept as a child and raised to believe it to exist by people who also believe in heaven.

#65 Posted by JohnF111 (14088 posts) -
#66 Posted by BranKetra (48429 posts) -

When those of us addressing matters of faith assert there is no evidence for something, I wonder how much trust there is for whenever the then-current modern science because we continue to learn knew information about the universe and possibly the multiverse. To say such a thing might be too entrenched in the knowledge of today and not enough on what we will learn tomorrow.

#67 Posted by -TheSecondSign- (9191 posts) -

You have to ask them yourself. That isn't a question anyone else can answer but the person you want to know it from.

#68 Edited by Bardock47 (5272 posts) -

A much more comforting thought than eternal damnation, or just pure nothingness. If going to wonder about the great beyond, why not make it nice?

#69 Posted by TheWalkingGhost (5238 posts) -

Why should you care what others believe in? Let them, they aren't harming you.

#70 Posted by airshocker (29356 posts) -

Why do you care so much, TC? As long as their beliefs aren't harming others, no one should give a fuck what somebody else believes in.

#71 Posted by Buckhannah (293 posts) -

Because they are told it exists from an early impressionable age by people whom they trust completely.

#72 Posted by Gaming-Planet (14021 posts) -

I hope heaven has lots of wine.

#73 Posted by Floppy_Jim (25644 posts) -

If only it were possible to see their post-death reactions when they realise none of it's real and they're going to rot in the ground after all like the rest of us.

#74 Edited by TheFlush (5533 posts) -

Let's say my mom's a devote Christian (she goes to heaven), I on the other hand am a gay atheist (double whammy straight to hell).

  1. If I will never be with her in heaven, she won't ever be truly happy. So it wouldn't be heaven for her.
  2. If she will be happy in heaven while I'm burning in hell, she simply wouldn't be my mom anymore.

Either way, heaven would be a dumb concept.

#75 Posted by alim298 (1317 posts) -

@TheFlush said:

Let's say my mom's a devote Christian (she goes to heaven), I on the other hand am a gay atheist (double whammy straight to hell).

  1. If I will never be with her in heaven, she won't ever be truly happy. So it wouldn't be heaven for her.
  2. If she will be happy in heaven while I'm burning in hell, she simply wouldn't be my mom anymore.

Either way, heaven would be a dumb concept.

Upon entering heaven, God will inform your mother of your wrong-doings so then your mother knows that you deserve what you got. If God's unlimited mercy and love judge you a failure then certainly you mother's limited mercy and love also judge you a failure.

"I have now warned you of the blazing fire, in which none shall be roasted except the most wretched sinner."

#76 Posted by Korvus (3528 posts) -

@alim298 said:

Upon entering heaven, God will inform your mother of your wrong-doings so then your mother knows that you deserve what you got. If God's unlimited mercy and love judge you a failure then certainly you mother's limited mercy and love also judge you a failure.

"I have now warned you of the blazing fire, in which none shall be roasted except the most wretched sinner."

I normally don't talk against other people's beliefs but you just said that God in his eternal mercy decided to have you tortured for eternity. Did this sentence make sense in your head? Also, what kind of father deems his child a failure and punishes them for eternity?

#77 Posted by alim298 (1317 posts) -

@korvus said:

@alim298 said:

Upon entering heaven, God will inform your mother of your wrong-doings so then your mother knows that you deserve what you got. If God's unlimited mercy and love judge you a failure then certainly you mother's limited mercy and love also judge you a failure.

"I have now warned you of the blazing fire, in which none shall be roasted except the most wretched sinner."

I normally don't talk against other people's beliefs but you just said that God in his eternal mercy decided to have you tortured for eternity. Did this sentence make sense in your head? Also, what kind of father deems his child a failure and punishes them for eternity?

As I stated only the most wretched sinner gets to live in hell for "eternity." There's great dispute among Muslim philosophers when it comes to afterlife which means it's a sensitive and hard to grasp concept.

For example the word "eternity" has been subject of dispute. I've heard from my teachers that some philosophers translate the word "khalid" which is Arabic for "eternal" to mean "a very long time." So long that you can simply consider it "for eternity." Said philosophers argue that God's infinite mercy that encompasses everything (He replied: 'i will smite with my punishment whom i will; yet my mercy embraces all things. i will write it (my mercy) to those who are cautious, give the obligatory charity, and believe in our verses;) prevents ANYONE from suffering for INFINITE AMOUNT OF TIME. Even those as wretched as the Nazis. But all shall pay for their sins. Especially sins that they committed against God's creation and themselves not just against God. That is God's justice.

#78 Posted by Korvus (3528 posts) -

@alim298: But even the most wretched sinner is a child of God, are they not? My question was mostly about how God's mercy is unlimited but he chooses not to use it.

But I find your theory interesting. So if "eternity" is not forever, what happens to the souls afterwards?

#79 Edited by TheFlush (5533 posts) -

@alim298 said:

@TheFlush said:

Let's say my mom's a devote Christian (she goes to heaven), I on the other hand am a gay atheist (double whammy straight to hell).

  1. If I will never be with her in heaven, she won't ever be truly happy. So it wouldn't be heaven for her.
  2. If she will be happy in heaven while I'm burning in hell, she simply wouldn't be my mom anymore.

Either way, heaven would be a dumb concept.

Upon entering heaven, God will inform your mother of your wrong-doings so then your mother knows that you deserve what you got. If God's unlimited mercy and love judge you a failure then certainly you mother's limited mercy and love also judge you a failure.

"I have now warned you of the blazing fire, in which none shall be roasted except the most wretched sinner."

So if 'god' simply informs my mother she'll be completely okay that her child will be tortured for all eternity? That doesn't make sense. My mother loves me, if a simple message from some god could change that, it would again mean that's she's no longer my mother but someone different.

Also if my mother's limited mercy and love can dismiss me being a failure, why can't an all powerful god do the same? Your god is weaksauce.

#80 Edited by alim298 (1317 posts) -

@korvus said:

@alim298: But even the most wretched sinner is a child of God, are they not? My question was mostly about how God's mercy is unlimited but he chooses not to use it.

But I find your theory interesting. So if "eternity" is not forever, what happens to the souls afterwards?

Well that's another question that has been subject of dispute. The easiest answer would be: "well they enter heaven, the doors of hell close, and everyone lives happily ever after." But the hard answer requires knowing the true purpose of every man's existence. You know, the real reason God created us. We would need to discuss a lot of things if we wanted to give a proper answer and even then our answer would seem subjective. But if I were to give a loose answer I would say that: it's like an exam. Only difference is that God passes everyone. But the ones who get F are not equal to those who get A.

#81 Posted by Korvus (3528 posts) -

@alim298: Well, at least you're giving me something other than "Because God says so"...thank you for that; I appreciate your feedback =)

#82 Edited by alim298 (1317 posts) -

@TheFlush: Read my quoted sentence. I meant that God's compassion exceeds that of your mother. So if your mother forgives you while being fully aware of the full burden of your sins then God will certainly forgive you too.

By that sentence I was backing my claim.

#83 Edited by TheFlush (5533 posts) -

@alim298 said:

@TheFlush: Read my quoted sentence. I meant that God's compassion exceeds that of your mother. So if your mother forgives you while being fully aware of the full burden of your sins then God will certainly forgive you too.

So let's party in heaven then! Woop Woop!

#84 Posted by alim298 (1317 posts) -

@korvus: You're welcome. :D

I enjoy replying to you especially when it comes to religion-related topics. You truly challenge a person's beliefs without ever insulting them and that's really noble. I had to check my sources a couple of times to be sure that I'm not just throwing words around and that's something that rarely happens unless the quality of the question asked is great. :)

#85 Edited by Korvus (3528 posts) -

@alim298: I guess it depends what your goal is when asking a question. If you want to reassure yourself that you are in the right, then you might end up being forceful and lash out when the conversation isn't going your way. On the other hand, if you approach a subject with genuine curiosity, you gain nothing by antagonising the person you're addressing...all that's going to achieve is you being left to discuss by yourself =P

I'm mostly curious why people feel and believe differently than I do; I'm not concerned about converting anyone to my ideas or being converted by anyone, so I have no problem in receiving feedback that might be contrary to my view of how a specific subject works.

#86 Edited by foxhound_fox (88047 posts) -

@BranKetra said:

When those of us addressing matters of faith assert there is no evidence for something, I wonder how much trust there is for whenever the then-current modern science because we continue to learn knew information about the universe and possibly the multiverse. To say such a thing might be too entrenched in the knowledge of today and not enough on what we will learn tomorrow.

There is no evidence for most things in religion. That's the purpose of faith.

Relying on the stance that "it could be proven true tomorrow" feels very Pascal's Wagerish. Sure, it could be proven true at any point, but that's what most of us holding the position of non-belief support, is not believing in it until there is some reason to. Not burdening our lives with thoughts outside the real.

Science is about coming up with explanations of observed facts, not coming up with a conclusion and seeking evidence to prove it true. If there were evidence to suggest a realm outside our own existed, and was as the Bible described, I'm sure there would be significant scientific endeavor to understand it.

EDIT: Also, @alim298: Dat mental gymnastics. Those with faith who try and logically understand their faith must have so much less mental/emotional energy throughout the day.

#87 Edited by alim298 (1317 posts) -

@foxhound_fox: You...Jelly?

I've seen the word "thinking" and it's variants so many times in Quran. Doing a quick search I say at least 90 times. Also the word "knowledge" and it's variants "484" times.

Islam is a religion of logical thinking.

#88 Posted by foxhound_fox (88047 posts) -

@alim298 said:

@foxhound_fox: You...Jelly?

I've seen the word "thinking" and it's variants so many times in Quran. Doing a quick search I say at least 90 times. Also the word "knowledge" and it's variants "484" times.

Islam is a religion of logical thinking.

#89 Posted by toast_burner (21498 posts) -

@alim298 said:

@foxhound_fox: You...Jelly?

I've seen the word "thinking" and it's variants so many times in Quran. Doing a quick search I say at least 90 times. Also the word "knowledge" and it's variants "484" times.

Islam is a religion of logical thinking.

Is this a joke? Because that's incredibly illogical. "It says the word thinking therefore it encourages logical thinking!"

#90 Posted by BranKetra (48429 posts) -

@BranKetra said:

When those of us addressing matters of faith assert there is no evidence for something, I wonder how much trust there is for whenever the then-current modern science because we continue to learn knew information about the universe and possibly the multiverse. To say such a thing might be too entrenched in the knowledge of today and not enough on what we will learn tomorrow.

There is no evidence for most things in religion. That's the purpose of faith.

Relying on the stance that "it could be proven true tomorrow" feels very Pascal's Wagerish. Sure, it could be proven true at any point, but that's what most of us holding the position of non-belief support, is not believing in it until there is some reason to. Not burdening our lives with thoughts outside the real.

Science is about coming up with explanations of observed facts, not coming up with a conclusion and seeking evidence to prove it true. If there were evidence to suggest a realm outside our own existed, and was as the Bible described, I'm sure there would be significant scientific endeavor to understand it.

EDIT: Also, @alim298: Dat mental gymnastics. Those with faith who try and logically understand their faith must have so much less mental/emotional energy throughout the day.

My intention was not to persuade or coerce others to believe because it is rational. I am simply understanding religions in my own way. Also, I understand science. Christianity seems to have become a religion that is considered already concluded in some ways and individuals believe that people are seeking evidence to prove it true. My concern is that the thousands of years of information in the scripture is completely discounted because of a lack of evidence of some events, beings, and realms.

There is a scientific endeavor to understand one aspect of religions and it is significant. That is the study of the origin of life on earth which remains unsolved to this day.

I will inform you that as someone who does make an effort to understand belief logically that I am quite energetic. I work out six days a week, work, and am going to school next month. Also, I volunteer this moderator position and keep in contact with my friends. My reason for being able to forgo being overwhelmed must be due to what I experienced thus far in my life that established the reality of my faith and further built upon that foundation years later.

#91 Edited by toast_burner (21498 posts) -

@BranKetra said:

@foxhound_fox said:

@BranKetra said:

When those of us addressing matters of faith assert there is no evidence for something, I wonder how much trust there is for whenever the then-current modern science because we continue to learn knew information about the universe and possibly the multiverse. To say such a thing might be too entrenched in the knowledge of today and not enough on what we will learn tomorrow.

There is no evidence for most things in religion. That's the purpose of faith.

Relying on the stance that "it could be proven true tomorrow" feels very Pascal's Wagerish. Sure, it could be proven true at any point, but that's what most of us holding the position of non-belief support, is not believing in it until there is some reason to. Not burdening our lives with thoughts outside the real.

Science is about coming up with explanations of observed facts, not coming up with a conclusion and seeking evidence to prove it true. If there were evidence to suggest a realm outside our own existed, and was as the Bible described, I'm sure there would be significant scientific endeavor to understand it.

EDIT: Also, @alim298: Dat mental gymnastics. Those with faith who try and logically understand their faith must have so much less mental/emotional energy throughout the day.

My intention was not to persuade or coerce others to believe because it is rational. I am simply understanding religions in my own way. Also, I understand science. Christianity seems to have become a religion that is considered already concluded in some ways and individuals believe that people are seeking evidence to prove it true. My concern is that the thousands of years of information in the scripture is completely discounted because of a lack of evidence of some events, beings, and realms.

There is a scientific endeavor to understand one aspect of religions and it is significant. That is the study of the origin of life on earth which remains unsolved to this day.

I will inform you that as someone who does make an effort to understand belief logically that I am quite energetic. I work out six days a week, work, and am going to school next month. Also, I volunteer this moderator position and keep in contact with my friends. My reason for being able to forgo being overwhelmed must be due to what I experienced thus far in my life that established the reality of my faith and further built upon that foundation years later.

How does that make religion significant? Religion doesn't answer that question either, it only pretends to answer it. The biblical explanation for the origin of life is equally as scientific as saying it originated from a drunken time traveller who dropped a chicken egg off the side of his time machine (not scientific at all)

There are actual scientific hypothesis on how life may have originated, abiogenesis. God does not fit into this and religion does nothing to help understand it.

You're free to believe what you want. But don't pretend that your ideas are scientific.

#92 Edited by BranKetra (48429 posts) -

@BranKetra said:

@foxhound_fox said:

@BranKetra said:

When those of us addressing matters of faith assert there is no evidence for something, I wonder how much trust there is for whenever the then-current modern science because we continue to learn knew information about the universe and possibly the multiverse. To say such a thing might be too entrenched in the knowledge of today and not enough on what we will learn tomorrow.

There is no evidence for most things in religion. That's the purpose of faith.

Relying on the stance that "it could be proven true tomorrow" feels very Pascal's Wagerish. Sure, it could be proven true at any point, but that's what most of us holding the position of non-belief support, is not believing in it until there is some reason to. Not burdening our lives with thoughts outside the real.

Science is about coming up with explanations of observed facts, not coming up with a conclusion and seeking evidence to prove it true. If there were evidence to suggest a realm outside our own existed, and was as the Bible described, I'm sure there would be significant scientific endeavor to understand it.

EDIT: Also, @alim298: Dat mental gymnastics. Those with faith who try and logically understand their faith must have so much less mental/emotional energy throughout the day.

My intention was not to persuade or coerce others to believe because it is rational. I am simply understanding religions in my own way. Also, I understand science. Christianity seems to have become a religion that is considered already concluded in some ways and individuals believe that people are seeking evidence to prove it true. My concern is that the thousands of years of information in the scripture is completely discounted because of a lack of evidence of some events, beings, and realms.

There is a scientific endeavor to understand one aspect of religions and it is significant. That is the study of the origin of life on earth which remains unsolved to this day.

I will inform you that as someone who does make an effort to understand belief logically that I am quite energetic. I work out six days a week, work, and am going to school next month. Also, I volunteer this moderator position and keep in contact with my friends. My reason for being able to forgo being overwhelmed must be due to what I experienced thus far in my life that established the reality of my faith and further built upon that foundation years later.

How does that make religion significant? Religion doesn't answer that question either, it only pretends to answer it. The biblical explanation for the origin of life is equally as scientific as saying it originated from a drunken time traveller who dropped a chicken egg off the side of his time machine (not scientific at all)

There are actual scientific hypothesis on how life may have originated, abiogenesis. God does not fit into this and religion does nothing to help understand it.

You're free to believe what you want. But don't pretend that your ideas are scientific.

Your use of the word "pretend" implies cognitive dissonance which is a bad way to describe how billions view life.

Abiogenesis does not fully explain the origins of life and that is why I said it is unproven.

That depends on which god or gods you are referring to. I can say the same thing. You are entitled to your opinion as well. Do not pretend that what you accept to be true is completely so.

#93 Posted by foxhound_fox (88047 posts) -

@toast_burner

@BranKetra said:

unproven

That's a very heavily weighted word. To science, abiogenesis is the currently most well-accepted and sensible explanation of the observable facts about the origin of life in the universe. Nothing in science can be "proven true", like one would prove something in philosophy or mathematics. There is always means to expand the science.

-BUT-

And this is a big but (I like them and I cannot lie), one cannot inject "Goddidit" or any other supernatural element into science to make it true. That's faith. Faith cannot coexist with science (I personally cannot see how people can reconcile it, even if they say they can). It requires the belief in something non-scientific and asserting it is true. Absolutely true. If it cannot be asserted as such, then it is not faith.

#94 Posted by The_Last_Ride (71187 posts) -

Because it gives them hope

#95 Edited by BranKetra (48429 posts) -
@foxhound_fox said:

@toast_burner

@BranKetra said:

unproven

That's a very heavily weighted word. To science, abiogenesis is the currently most well-accepted and sensible explanation of the observable facts about the origin of life in the universe. Nothing in science can be "proven true", like one would prove something in philosophy or mathematics. There is always means to expand the science.

-BUT-

And this is a big but (I like them and I cannot lie), one cannot inject "Goddidit" or any other supernatural element into science to make it true. That's faith. Faith cannot coexist with science (I personally cannot see how people can reconcile it, even if they say they can). It requires the belief in something non-scientific and asserting it is true. Absolutely true. If it cannot be asserted as such, then it is not faith.

Indeed, it is.That said, I know that science is crucial for improving the quality of life. Also, I know of higher power from personal experiences. As a result of these personal experiences, I trust in religious dogma, though admittedly some more than others. Maybe you can understand my perspective based on that line of consideration.