Why the Christian/Judeo/Islamic God?

Very True
You have to find god on your own

I believe in jesus because life is better with him.
All I have to do is pray and my prayers are heard.
I follow the rasta lifestyle because its what I like and i never do no harm.
So as far as I'm concerned, I'm good with my god and hes good with me.
Its a good relationship.

I'm not saying that my god is better than yours or even that you should try mine but I will tell you that He's real and you are really missin out until you get to know him.

 

Indeed. In the case of these spontaneous healings, I wonder if people might believe that they were healed by some supernatural force because the alternative - that they went into remission for no reason, while others died for equally little reason - makes them feel "survivor's guilt".

God isn't just there to explain the big stuff. People believed in (or at least invented) "gremlins" that cause defects in airplanes as recently as WWII. These were engineers and pilots, and they weren't doing it out of ignorance so much as fear: they knew that these little gremlins weren't really ruining their planes, but the alternative - that their planes could just fail and fall out of the sky - was unthinkable.

Indeed. So maybe hate the sinner, not the sin? If faith is, as your sig says, a vice, it should be treated like any other vice - permitted with moderation advised, and maybe the odd disclaimer to drink/think responsibly!

Not my country, not my government. In fact, my hometown is notable for being the constituency of Charles Bradlaugh, the MP responsible for overturning the requirement to swear unto God in Parliament and subsequently in court. This was some time in the 19th century.

I do find it mildly offensive that a nation with such a backward attitude towards atheism and religion is in charge of the world, but then, we were no better at the height of our empire. Y'all will grow out of it. [/condescending "Old Europe" diatribe]

I would say though, don't make the mistake of thinking that it's your government that's so set against atheism. You're in a democracy. That means your government is answerable to the people, and in this case, it's clearly terrified that if it seems soft on atheism, its public will vote it out. Neither party is going to run with an openly atheist candidate because it puts them at a disadvantage - most atheists will vote for a Christian candidate, but probably less Christians will vote for an atheist.

Well again, no-one's asking you to respect it, just to ignore it. Indifference, not tolerance, is the secret of a peaceful culture.

 

But how does the big stuff connect to the little stuff? We wish so badly that would and still it could be some form of democracy, plutochracy, or human tolerance which causes this God to exist. really it wouldn't have to be any of these charied traditions, that is the tradition for propping the OIL industry for it's ease of access for affluence in the REALM of anywhere'ness. In fact, it is now that the Arab nations are defending at the top all of these Motif's for time accomplishing individualism and sometimes even basic freedom to choose the job we would want.

And there seem to be no recourse for the values of believing that God, the one God of the universe, is compassionate, loving of all humanity, and just to the virtues of 'all' of us ordinary people of consciousness for the mutual experience of hoped for Peace (and well to mention a long Life), the sense of being in the midst of these tidings is the tyranny of salted and Golden Man blindly provoking the necessity of environmental solutions based on blackmail, violence, and imposed equality from the rulers' Judgment.

God in such a perspective of jealousy and experimentation on how the trust still occurs will insist that we hide:

stop taking those trips abroad.

 

It doesn't.

 

You should read Adam Smith; but I don't care for him. He gives too many options for this Puritan World.

 

Adam Smith is a cynical **** and a fucking genius. If he'd been a satirist, people would've loved him.

 

Well, man, what do I say on this?
Only, that such doctrine as evolution is a miserable teaching! Leaves one in a miserable consciousness of having no hope. However, we humans are given this brilliant thing, intelligence. Using this fine tool it takes no great effort to expose such teachings as mere mental masturbation. That is, they kind of bring momentary satisfaction of "oh, what a cool explanation, am I not smart!", -- but no real satisfaction in life, nor answers to greater questions: how did this world appeared? how will the present challenges be handled? and the like. Evolution gives no answer. It doesn't meet the spiritual needs of a human heart, you must admit it. And evolutionists DO admit it actually -- by telling us, that perhaps our spiritual needs CAN'T be met the way our human heart would like.
...Well, not by the means of evolution tool anyway!

So , to me the question can be simplified down to this one: whether you agree to accept misery as our only reality and future -- and build your present life so as to draw most from what that misery has to offer; or be searching for TRUTH -- such as would bring comfort to your soul, not only to your body. Such explanation, that would provide satisfactory answers to everything, and at the same time would help to handle the real life issues to one's satisfaction. In this regard, the Bible with its God JEHOVAH (JHVH) is the best explanation I found after a long and painful search.

 

Well, I don't accept this notion of "spiritual needs", but I would say that the theory of evolution was never meant to make you happy. If you can't enjoy yourself and feel spiritually satiated without ignorance though, isn't that a far more miserable situation?

I'll be honest: intelligence doesn't have to be an obstacle for happiness. This is the least miserable of teachings. Hopelessness has nothing to do with intelligence, knowledge, wisdom or whatever else. I think intelligence makes you more sensitive to hopefulness and hopelessness in a way. Intelligence means that you can know that the universe will keep working long after you're dead (more about that later though ), and that you don't matter. To you, that might be depressing; to me, it was kind of a relief!

Evolution, by the way, doesn't really apply to man anymore, so I really don't see how you can find it depressing or hopeless. Our preliminary understanding of evolution - selective breeding of livestock, which predates Darwin by centuries - has helped us in many ways, although arguably has brought its own problems (cow flatulence apparently contributes greatly to global warming, and we contributed to cow flatulence through our agricultural success!). But as top carnivores, humans are about as likely to evolve as sharks at this point. We are, however, approaching the point where we will be able to control our own "evolution".

And yeah... if you can't deal with evolution because it's too depressing for you, whatever you do, don't look up "heat death" on Wikipedia. EVER. I'm pretty optimistic and comfortable with depressing science, but even I was like "...whoa. ...shit."

I'm troubled by this. You're basically saying that, irrespective of whether evolution is true, we should look for something less depressing, and declare that to be "TRUTH" purely because it makes us feel better?

The choice you're presenting here - between blissful ignorance and science that we must not be exposed to because IT CAN AND WILL ONLY EVER BRING US MISERY - is not only false but borderline offensive. You can deal with the way the world i however you want, but to deny that it is that way is pretty fucking stupid.

 

Only one God created this world

Hindus say that Brahman is the creator, Muslims say
That Allah is creator, Christians say that the creator is
Jehovah, all say that the creation is this entire world.
If Hindus say that Brahman created India, and if
Muslims say that Allah created Arabian countries and
If Christians say that Jehovah created the western countries,
The problem is solved, there can be three Gods together,
Who have created the three parts of the earth separately.
But this is not so, each religion says that their God only
Created the entire world, unfortunately there is one world!
One world only! Come on, all of you sit together here
And give me the final conclusion after debate, otherwise,
The scientists are laughing on all of you! Shame to all!
They criticize that these religions do not have even
The basic logic, which is the fundamental common sense.

Because of you, the greatest God is also mocked by them
They say that the religions are rigid conservatisms!
Even a small boy is putting this question to all of you.
Stop all your discourses and first answer this question.
If you want to say that God created the entire world,
You have to accept that there is one God only always
And that His names are all the above three names.
We see in the world a single person having three names.
If there is one God, He only created this entire world.
All the human beings are invariably His children only.
No Father is partial to a single child and therefore
He must have preached the same knowledge to all
In different languages and in different methodologies
To different levels, this is Universal Spirituality.
At Thy Lotus Feet His Holiness Sri Dattaswami


www.universal-spirituality.org

 

Oh, there is NO "irrespective" in this case. Evolutionists STILL have to present some substantial proof to their legend, then we can call it a theory. I wander if you took trouble to read the whole thread from the beginning. But that might be boring, I admit.

Already answered. No blissful ignorance any more. Miserable feeling evolution leaves you in is but ONE among many points against this ficticious theory. There are NO cases of evolution ever seen, and there are no scientifically known mechanisms to make it even possible. Did you know that? Well, but this is the long and the short of it.
So, evolution now can safely occupy its place among other fantastic theories humans take up just for their amusement and mental satisfaction. It is not a scientific theory, it is a religion many educated people cling to -- for further disappointment.

 

The author of these sencere word should definitely learn a bit more about Jehovah.
It is his Biblical name, which WAS before the word "allah" was ever heard. It wasn't "allah" at that time -- it was "elohim".
And Hindus: if they say Brahmah is the creator, then why don't they worship him??
Interesting, too, about Brahmah: the old hebrew word RAHAM means "compassionate and merciful one"; it also means "womb", "bowels". Turkish Er-Rahman means "merciful". And Brahmah -- is he not compared with the womb?
So, I would not mix it all into one pile; instead, we can study the matters and tell wheat from the weeds.

 

is the same G-D because exists only one G-D

 

No, if evolution was proved it would not be a theory; it would be a theorem. They're offered supporting evidence, which is why it's a theory. I haven't read the whole thread but if someone has implied that there is not sufficient evidence to regard the theory of evolution as a theory, they're just wrong.

Clutching at straws, are we? Because you appear to actually be suggesting that the fact that a theory may not bring us happiness is evidence against it ("ONE among many points against"). That is an absolutely farcical attack. If you expect anyone to be persuaded by this kind of argument, you are a desperate scoundrel. The only tragedy is that you might also be right about that.

Nonsense. The process by which evolution would occur has as near to been reproduced by human agents for centuries.

If the process described by the theory of evolution is observable and replicable in the selective breeding of livestock, why is it so ridiculous to imagine that, on a long timeline with millions of organisms, it has not happened in nature?

People may be disappointed if they regard the theory of evolution as something to give them the satisfaction that religion brings them. But your attempt to use that to dissuade people from even considering it as a possibility is either ignorant or deeply cynical. The theory is not a threat to you, yet you act as though it were some aggressive fellow religion that wants you gone. You are not alone in this.

In general, you're making really bad arguments. The truth or not of evolution seems of far less import to you than the desire to tell people that the theory won't make them happy, as if that were evidence of its untruth. You cannot logically justify that, so don't try, but I ask you, if the laws of physics don't lead us to spiritual fulfillment, would you be as foolishly willing to denounce them too? Or is it only because evolution can still be evidenced against (unlike religion, which simply twists itself to fit around proof and disproof to keep the faith) that you attempt to exploit any gap in the theory to peddle whatever it is you're peddling?

 

Such an affectation, this "G-D" thing. God is a word, with a lower case "g". It's not some sacred name.

 

If evolution is but a theory, then why is it universally taught at schools as if it was the only truth? Why so, when it is so poorly proved? Frankly, with such state of affairs you can call it a religion -- yes, a religion among scientists, to which they cling, contrary to all reason. And as a religion it is very poor, because it doesn't bring satisfaction expected from a religion.
It is also a religion, because it contradicts that of creation. It is either creation or evolution. Have you never heard of this? The world and life in it came into existence in some way. Which way? The answer will effect our views upon many things. If it was evolution, then we are left to our own devices! No god to address for help. If it was creation -- then we are facing the reality of a Creator with all that follows.
And BTW, creation fills those "gaps in the evolution theory" quite well. So, scientifically speaking, why should one not decide in behalf of creation as a more probable explanation? This has been discussed in this thread and I see no need to repeat it.

I wander, if you really got the point of the thread. The title says it is about why people choose a particular god, that of the Bible. So, my arguments are spoken in the terms of the main topic. If it wasn't God who created everything, it was evolution and vice versa.

***What you are saying about human experiments with breeding is NO case of evolution by definition. Evolution is a development of a new KIND. There is NO new kinds: dogs remain dogs, sheep remain sheep. For an evolution champion you might study the subject a bit more carefully; why compell others to bring you back to the basic definitions?

 

Most things taught in schools are theories. You are just showing your ignorance here.

I've heard it from really ignorant people who are trying to make a case against evolution out of nothing, yes.

Evolution conflicts with creation in the same way as the age of the Earth and Universe conflict with creation; it doesn't conflict with the idea of a creator, merely with specific accounts of how life and the Earth was created. And it only does that because, as a scientific theory, it expects factual inaccuracies to be explained. Evolution does not require one not to believe in creation, which is what you are erroneously implying.

Awww diddums. Did you know that a lot of people who do believe in creation don't believe that the Creator is hanging around waiting for us to ask for help? I think they'd think very little of this argument, that evolution is bad (and thus false) because it leaves you petitioning the empty sky about how unfair it all is. No wonder evolution makes you so upset, if you're foolish enough to think that the cosmos is supposed to be your frickin' nursemaid! Most of those who consider evolution a possibility aren't of that mind though, which is probably why they don't find it so depressing and unfulfilling.

You can do what you like if you care more about answering questions as quickly and conveniently as possible than with actually finding out the truth, which from the arguments you're making you quite clearly do. You've shown zero inclination to discuss anything, preferring to dismiss it casually with as little kerfuffle as possible.

Actually, if your arguments are spoken in those terms, then it's not a choice between the god of the Abrahamic faiths or evolution. Ignoring whether a god and evolution can coexist as possibilities, there are plenty of other religions to choose from. Even if we imagine all monotheistic religions to refer to the same/similar gods, polytheism isn't something to just toss out.

I don't think you are speaking within the "point" of the thread though.

Yeah, I don't really feel particularly inclined to try and explain this to you're so content to sneer at the very idea. You've made it quite plain that your rejection of the theory of evolution is based not on factual inaccuracies but on personal objections. You don't like evolution because it makes you sad, because you think it doesn't allow for a god that will come help you when you need it, right? What's the point in me trying to explain, to someone whose main evidence against evolution is a severe case of his own butthurt, that he's looking at it from the wrong end? OF COURSE he's looking at it from the wrong end; he wants it to fail under scrutiny, so what better way to ensure that?

You imagine the species that we have having to be "explained" by evolution. If you think of them as having come from evolution, it makes total sense. OK, so my example of man's experiments with selective breeding doesn't totally indicate evolution. But then, those experiments weren't trying to create new species. It was never their goal to demonstrate to you that evolution happened. I cited them to illustrate that there is a clear scientific framework for the process, but you do, I'll admit, have to make a leap of faith to deal with the kind of numbers we're talking about here.

But that's it. That's all you're getting from me. Because I know you have no interest really. You insist that the discussion's been had and that you won. I know that you didn't win, because there's even less evidence of creation than of evolution, but you think you did, and it made you feel good, so that's what's important. I'm done. You won. The universe is as you say it is, purely because you say it is.

 

OK, now at least I can clearly see your viewpoint on the matter. No I don't think I won, I'm not interested in winning, but rather in seeing good proof to alternative views and theories. We are living in a certain world , where certain laws work in a manner, quite well described. So it is natural if one wants to see how a theory fits into the framework of these laws. If you can't present such explanations, what's the use of the theory? It is then a hazy vision only.

Of course, I respect the position of those, who don't care much about the practical value and therefore allow, that everything is possible at the same time. I mean, I don't personally believe in this, but if some do believe -- why, it is their right and their life. In such case I feel the need to apologize if my posts infringed upon your right to freely present your viewpoint.

To me, if someone says "this is possible", then he's expected to show just HOW in the world such thing is possible. Imagine: you are recruiting people for some business with a certain probability of success; naturally, they want to know the odds, right? So, before I allow some space in my head for a theory, I want to know the odds of its being true. Some theories effect humankind's thinking (and hence, life) more , than you want to believe. But of course, it is your right to disagree.

 

And what's your point? Creation doesn't obey physical laws, does it? Not that evidence against one theory is evidence for another, but creation without evolution requires a hell of a lot more explaining. We can see mutation in process. We can see that, unchecked, it can make organisms that are clearly distinguishable. We can take into account that we have been classifying species for a mere eyeblink in the history of life on our planet. And we can at least postulate from that that mutation could lead to evolution. That is not "outside the framework" of the laws you describe. I'm not personally an evolutionary biologist, but I see little reason for anyone to lie about evolution being evidenced. I don't know, what reason can you think of? Why would scientists want to piss on a perfectly good creation theory if it didn't have massive holes in it?

I'm not sure what you mean by "practical value" here. If you're suggesting that to believe in evolution one must believe that everything is equally possible, you're just wrong.

What was the point of this statement?

Surely there's far more burden on someone who says something is impossible.

 

As the bumper sticker says, "evolution is only a theory, something like gravity." The term "theory" in science doesn't imply that it's speculative. Scientific theories are explanations that seem best to explain the available empirical evidence, and from which empirically testable, refutable hypotheses can be generated. The theory of evolution is actually pretty impressive in accounting for a wide variety of evidence, including geology, fossil finds, genetic patterns, etc. That doesn't mean it's true, but it's far from groundless. If rabbits turn up in the Jurassic strata, or authentic dinosaur tracks (as opposed to fake ones) actually do turn up together with human footprints, we can reject it and move on. Is there an alternative empirically supported and refutable theory that does better?

 

Here is, where it actually failed. You need to update your information.
Darwin himself was anxious over the lack of fossil of geological evidence; the situation didn't improve up to now. That is, it's got worse, since time didn't provide any such evidence.
Genetic patterns only allow to suggest the evolution, just like diverse species allowed Darwin to suggest it. But no practical mechanism, which would make it possible, has been shown up to now. All the mechanisms given by the evolutionists go "against all natural laws known to us today", as they themselves admit. That is to say, such "mechanisms" cannot produce life, unless artificially directed by intelligent power. But this means a Creator! Since we got to this point, it is easy to see: the Creator doesn't need evolution for his helper. The existing account of Creation (in the Bible) says, God created things according to their kind. This we see, too. Do we see "kinds" evolving into different "kinds"? No, we don't, not a single case witnessed by humans throughout their existence. But the process wasn't supposed to stop at some point, since it is "spontaneous".