Originally Posted by splodeymissile
A theory of life may exist, but we haven't found it yet. I think there's to many different beliefs, many of which are mutually exclusive (what would happen if a monotheistic God met a whole pantheon?) for there to be a unifying one, especially since we can't, as of yet, prove one of the other. I don't believe theory and belief are mutually exclusive, but they're certainly different things. Its all well and good knowing the hows, but do we know the whys? As you say, belief provides an answer, even if its not the answer.
Personally, I'm an atheist and a pretty scientifically minded one at that, so I don't have any beliefs involving Gods, spirits, souls or the like. Life, to me, is a potentially rare phenomenon, not just in terms of a self-replicating organism, but also in the multitude of forms it exists in. When you add in sentience, sapience and the vast amount of unique individual instances (Its a hell of a thing to contemplate the likelihood of your own existence) and we get one of the few things I'm willing to call a miracle.
The idea of being created by a God or having reincarnation always cheapened the idea in my mind. Doesn't matter if we die there's an eternal afterlife or we're coming back anyway or we have a vast amount of reserves floating in some aether. It just seemed like if we really buggered up, there wasn't much of a punishment, as opposed to a Godless universe, where it seems like there's more of a reason to preserve life and make it a happy as possible for everyone. I'm kind of digressing now, though, so, I'll stop here.
You say you're atheist, but you also said that we can't prove any one idea or belief. Shouldn't this make you Agnostic? I personally feel that being Agnostic is fair, because depending on your definition of an atheist (a firm belief that there is no God as opposed to suspending belief in a God due to lack of evidence), that should be the case.
I grew up pretty Christian, but certain things have been proving to lack consistency for me, such as the laws of physics regarding certain New Testament stories, such as Jesus's birth and ascension. If the Virgin Mary gave birth to him, then what was Jesus's DNA like? What was his genetic make-up of X and Y chromosomes? Did the Holy Spirit that impregnate her have human DNA, or at least DNA compatible with human DNA (I'm getting hot now thinking about mating with hot aliens). And regarding Jesus' ascension, at what point did his body just de-materialize? Did he physically just ascend indefinitely? The opening line from this guy's take on it made me literally laugh out loud The Ascension: Did Jesus Pass Saturn on His Way Up? | John G. Stackhouse, Jr.
I'm skeptical of the traditional Buddhist take on reincarnation, though I wouldn't rule it out if you assume that because everything is energy, everything is potentially God <-Pantheism.
In the shadow of the Big Bang Theory, there is still that original factor that didn't require anything else to spark the explosion of a point smaller than an atom into the observable universe we study today. Maybe a handful of people will never acknowledge that as God. After all, the definition of God has been so inconsistent across generations and ethnicities, that one must tread carefully when discussing it openly, which I am hoping that I am doing successfully.
I do think that the personal God from the Bible is the way He is because we projected our human tendencies onto that character, but the impersonal God that governs the laws of the universe and keeps it expanding is very real sometimes.
I think the capacity to believe in the personal God from the Bible will always be a part of me, but I do very much have an unbelieving side that balances that out.
|
|
Bookmarks