Lol I like how the title of this thread has "Obligatory" in it. That's pretty accurate.

Also, after reading a lot of these I have to point out that a miracle is something that cannot happen in the physical world and follow the natural laws (aka: it can't be explained, now or ever). A woman who is diseased and science cannot yet ascertain how to cure her, and then low and behold she's cured doesn't mean it doesn't have a rational reason, we just don't know what it is. This is why you need to be careful when deciding something is a miracle, because a miracle is something that absolutely positively cannot happen following natural laws, yet it did (miracles = supernatural).

Like, maybe, a quarter turning into a gold dollar just in the instance of closing my hand and opening it again?

Was that a miracle or a currently unknown scientific phenomenon?

You can use that argument to debunk any and all miracles, Ether. That's the rather neat thing about science. As we come to understand the supernatural, it becomes the natural.

Perhaps. I'd say that me walking across the ocean (without any super awesome scientific gizmo) would be a miracle. My point was that almost if not all "miracles" are likely things that can be explained. Medical miracles are the most common "miracles" because there is so much about medicine we don't know. I'd prefer a miracle that occurs that absolutely cannot happen (I throw a rock, and it starts going faster than the speed of light).

So some currently unknown phenomenon is helping you to walk across the ocean. The moment we know how, it becomes science.

I hope God looks like Jennifer Aniston.

This seems probable.

Why does the thread have to focus mainly on Catholicism and Christianity (and all branches of those two)? I think there should be more discussion on other religions as well. If this is the existence of God(s) we're talking about then wouldn't it be at least reasonable to discuss the possibility of one religion being true and another not?

Like cyclical religions- How do you know that instead of just one God (if he exists at all) there are many Gods controlling different aspects of life? How do you know that life is a one way trip and that it doesn't go in circles based on what you do?

The idea of a cyclical religion addresses many issues I have about religion- Mainly being that even if you're not religious, your life consequently and fairly affects your next life.

For instance: 1 man is a religious murderer, another man is an atheistic but charitable person. In the next life, the murderer will face consequences and the man who did good will face benefits. The cycle only ends once you become a completely good person, like in Buddhism, where people reach Nirvana.

This also addresses the problem of what happens when you die better than going to Heaven or Hell for eternal suffering. In my mind, it just makes more sense.

That's fine. I can't argue about what makes more sense when it comes to spirituality. To each his own.

On the issue of the Judeo-Christian God vs. other gods (in particular, plural gods), I don't see any true distinction. "God" is merely a word to describe that which created the universe. If there is more than one deity, then I would describe the set of those deities collectively as God. The full nature of God is unknowable, so why quibble over how to anthropomorphize questions of him (or it, or them). That being said, I still believe certain basic things about God: that he is good, that he is just, that he is merciful, that he is sovereign, etc. I also believe in very specific doctrines, such as that Jesus is God's son and that the Holy Spirit guides the followers of God. However, I don't claim these as knowledge, but rather as articles of faith. I believe them because they are intuitive and good in my mind. But again, to each his own. If you have a different perception of God or of spirituality than I, I can't argue against it.

Judeo-Christian God? Yahweh? It's ridiculous I grew up in a christian culture and just heard that name a week or so ago. Anyways, most religions that are polytheist eventually form into a monotheist religion (or at least into a religion with one god as a figure head, or creator of all other gods, this is why most people refer to "God" as an all encompassing word for the receiver of their worship, that word is not exclusive to euro originated religions)

What do you mean "most religions"? This is a pretty vague statement and does not address at all religions like Hinduism which have been around for ages and are still polytheistic. Could you give a few examples at least?

Essentially in Hinduism you can believe anything and not be considered "wrong". However, even the Hindu have a supreme God or "Higher" God, Ishvara. Polytheism doesn't necessarily always lead to exact monotheism, however one god that is worshiped over all others and is made out to be "supreme" is a common occurrence.

And how specific of example(s) would you like. As polytheism varies greatly between cultures, the High God tends to vary even within groups that have very similar beliefs. (an example would be to look at greek mythology, many groups claimed that the high god was Zeus, Poseidon, or Athena)

How is science evil? People may apply it in terrible ways, but with science, we can improve our lives. We can save lives.


Um, no. Hinduism is NOT polytheistic. Brahman is the god and the one god. He has many aspects. All gods are all Brahman--I believe I've addressed this before. Think of the Index Card thing presented by Blake--you can cut it in half, straight between through the index card, peeling it into two separate index cards--same amount of writing surface, simply half the thickness. There is now two index cards, but still only one card. This is much like Brahman (also called Ishvara)--all gods are aspects of Brahman, simply different facets of the same crystal. It doesn't quite fit the western definition of monotheism, but it's still one.

It is closer to Henotheism.

Depending on what branch of Hinduism you believe in--much like the discrepancy in the Christian religion about the trinity--it can be monistic, pantheistic or panentheistic. Henotheism, however, is the closest. (Sorry, some beliefs just don't fit into neat, pretty little boxes too well.) One of the largest denomination is Smartism, following the Advaita belief of absolute monism--the worship of all kinds of personal forms of god. There is unity with all person forms of god. I like the description as a single beam of white light breaking into colours, much like through a prism.

Your description of Hindu's theology sounds strikingly similar to Christianity's.

Many first-generation American Hindus say that Jesus might be an avatar of Vishnu.

So do dyed-in-the-wool Indian Hindus.

As far as I see it, religion and science are both good, especially put together. The benefits of science are obvious, or I wouldn't be writing to you. The benefits of religion can actually be proven scientifically. Research from last year showed that religious people often had stronger work ethics and higher work quality, improved job and life satisfaction, as well as a few benefits I don't recall, I don't believe the article/articles would be hard to find if you want to search yourself. So, if you put the two together, the benefits might be greater. I think this follows with the existence of God as well. Whether or not God/gods exist, nothing says that they don't, but nothing says they do. Perhaps this is the way the world was meant to look, as far as I can tell, there's no way to discern either way at the moment.

It's also easier to believe that someone up there is looking out for you when your life is going well, instead of punching you in the face. I'm not saying there isn't a statistical link, but there's not enough info to establish causality.

Statistical science would disagree
But as I recall, religious people have a higher suicide rate, or that's backwards, but apparently that was a strong finding.

I'm saying that there may in fact be a correlation, but that doesn't imply causation.

All religions, when taken down to their basic parts, sound very similar. :)

Yes. ALL the gods of different religions are considered to be a different person's take on Brahman--they simply see a different aspect of him. No one religion is wrong.

I agree.

Religion is also a VERY private matter. Some people lose their religion and never tell anyone. Some become very religious and never tell anyone. And those don't consider the people who are spiritual, but not religious.

Personally, I am a skeptic. Not just of religion, of everything.
Religion was a neat idea, more than two thousand years ago.
Looking at the origins, the first religions were created to explain things.
Like alchemy it shared things with science when it was created, their beliefs stemmed from reasons explaining observations, lightning came from the sky, tides rose and fell, and so on.

This became something to believe in, a sort of encouragement to put your faith in.
But this encouragement, a sort of mental crutch to give your life meaning, has to exist in a way where it can't be confuted.
If I were to pray to something like this, I would chose something more tangible than the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a friend of mine does. The sun, for example. Though my friend's wishes are granted as often as when he prays to the FSM as god, so I may convert.

If it inspires one to be a better person and helps that person to have hope and a more optimistic outlook on life, does it matter if the God they pray to exists only in their minds? If it enriches their life, why would it be bad?

Because the truth has intrinsic value? It's the matrix question, do you want to end the happier illusion for reality or live in blissful ignorance? Although personally I don't agree with that characterization. I find non-belief to be far more fulfilling than being afraid I was pissing off a sky-wizard all the time.

If you think Christianity or any other faith is about not pissing off a sky wizard, then you have no idea what faith means.

Edit:
And how do you define truth? If you define truth as that which is logically or empirically demonstrable, then you've begged the question when it comes to the existence of God since God is neither of those. In other words, the epistemological system you have adopted already presupposes the undecidability of God. That's a reasonable choice, but you must at least acknowledge that you have in fact made a choice, based only on intuition, to adopt that system. Therefore, you can hardly make a stronger claim to objective truth than I or anyone else can.