What's new

Closed You create your own god

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ako rin di ako naniniwala. I tried. Pero wala talaga e. Though I respect parin naman yung mga tao na religous. Ang di ko lang din gusto e yung pinipilit sakin yung beliefs nila sakin which is kabaliktaran sa hindi ko pagpilit sa kanila na wag din maniwala diba. Pero naiintindihan ko rin naman yun I think yung sa sinasabi nilang spreading the words yun ganon? Ah basta haha.
 
ayon sa kaisipan ko pag ang tao namatay para ka lang nakatulog at pag gising mo nasa ibang kaanyoan ka na naman di ko sure kung hayop o kung anong bagay babae ba o lalaki. di ko alam kung kelan ka gigising or kung ilang minuto oras lingo buwan o taon bago ka magroon ng malay ulit na yung mga nakalipas mo ay di mo na maalala ulit
 
Mankind discovered there is God. Many scientists/physicists will agree that the more you study science the more you believe there is a god. God is not created by our mere imagination. God is there even if we don't exist. We are just lucky that we have consciousness and ability to reason to be able to discuss it.

And as mankind discovered there is God, religion is established so we can have objective standard of good vs evil (aka Morality).
 
Mankind discovered there is God. Many scientists/physicists will agree that the more you study science the more you believe there is a god. God is not created by our mere imagination. God is there even if we don't exist. We are just lucky that we have consciousness and ability to reason to be able to discuss it.

And as mankind discovered there is God, religion is established so we can have objective standard of good vs evil (aka Morality).

What I'm trying to imply here is that people see or foresee our creator as that fictional "God" in religions' fictional books when, obviously, waley naman talaga yang mga religion blabbing na yan.
 
Mankind discovered there is God. Many scientists/physicists will agree that the more you study science the more you believe there is a god. God is not created by our mere imagination. God is there even if we don't exist. We are just lucky that we have consciousness and ability to reason to be able to discuss it.

And as mankind discovered there is God, religion is established so we can have objective standard of good vs evil (aka Morality).
Lol i would love to see your source on this one
 
Lol i would love to see your source on this one

Einstein, Big Bang, Special Relativity, Principle of Casuality, the ratio between the Strong and Weak Nuclear Force, etc. Do those count? LOL.

If you do not have any ideas to share about what the thread title argues, please, not me. It's not worth your time. LOL.

What I'm trying to imply here is that people see or foresee our creator as that fictional "God" in religions' fictional books when, obviously, waley naman talaga yang mga religion blabbing na yan.

Well, some people tell fictitious stories to be able to easily understand the moral of it. Same concept with superstitions, I think, to make sense of the religious/secular God. I just share my pov about this thread. I am not trying to convince you that you are wrong. Don't misunderstand. I believe in God because Science showed me there is God, not because I created him through my imagination. That's all there is to it.
 
Einstein, Big Bang, Special Relativity, Principle of Casuality, the ratio between the Strong and Weak Nuclear Force, etc. Do those count? LOL.

If you do not have any ideas to share about what the thread title argues, please, not me. It's not worth your time. LOL.



Well, some people tell fictitious stories to be able to easily understand the moral of it. Same concept with superstitions, I think, to make sense of the religious/secular God. I just share my pov about this thread. I am not trying to convince you that you are wrong. Don't misunderstand. I believe in God because Science showed me there is God, not because I created him through my imagination. That's all there is to it.
Einstein is a diest and he wrote a letter in which he dismissed belief in God as superstitious and characterized the stories in the Bible as childish.

Source:You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

Btw morality was stolen by religious people
It is an argument often raised by theists, in their attempt to prove the superiority of their religious faith, that “morality is taught by religion.” Rationalists counter this by stating that morality is nothing but the commonly held social norms that the human species acquired in its evolutionary process. Over the years, man understood that he cannot survive as a social group without mutual give and take, and this understanding further evolved into a common consensus that was widely accepted by societies of the respective ages. In its literal sense, "morality" refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores. It does not connote objective claims of right or wrong, but only refers to that which is considered right or wrong. Man uses this equation, which contains individual and cultural values, to differentiate right from wrong in social life. Morality is not a list of recommendations and prohibitions, but a logical approach to help us distinguish right from wrong. History reveals that religions captured and appropriated morality and positioned themselves as wholesale and retail dealers of the same. Unfortunately, religions twisted morality into a list of do’s and don't’s which could not accommodate the perspectives of a more educated, culturally aware and socially conscious society! In essence, the much celebrated claim that religions, especially Semitic religions, present a superior morality and result in a more civilized society, is quite baseless and nonsensical.
 
Last edited:
Einstein is a diest and he wrote a letter in which he dismissed belief in God as superstitious and characterized the stories in the Bible as childish.

Source:You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

Btw morality was stolen by religious people
It is an argument often raised by theists, in their attempt to prove the superiority of their religious faith, that “morality is taught by religion.” Rationalists counter this by stating that morality is nothing but the commonly held social norms that the human species acquired in its evolutionary process. Over the years, man understood that he cannot survive as a social group without mutual give and take, and this understanding further evolved into a common consensus that was widely accepted by societies of the respective ages. In its literal sense, "morality" refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores. It does not connote objective claims of right or wrong, but only refers to that which is considered right or wrong. Man uses this equation, which contains individual and cultural values, to differentiate right from wrong in social life. Morality is not a list of recommendations and prohibitions, but a logical approach to help us distinguish right from wrong. History reveals that religions captured and appropriated morality and positioned themselves as wholesale and retail dealers of the same. Unfortunately, religions twisted morality into a list of do’s and don't’s which could not accommodate the perspectives of a more educated, culturally aware and socially conscious society! In essence, the much celebrated claim that religions, especially Semitic religions, present a superior morality and result in a more civilized society, is quite baseless and nonsensical.

I appreciate the very long explanation about your definition of morality. It's a different discussion though. But I'll give you a brief one and it's a fact. If there is no God, Morality is just human opinions. If there is no God, good and evil are as much as the same as i like and i don't like.

Famous people known in the field of Science who believe there is God.

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
 
I appreciate the very long explanation about your definition of morality. It's a different discussion though. But I'll give you a brief one and it's a fact. If there is no God, Morality is just human opinions. If there is no God, good and evil are as much as the same as i like and i don't like.

Famous people known in the field of Science who believe there is God.

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

It reminded me of something. Most of my Japanese friends and basically most of the people in Japan don't have a religion. I ask them if they believed in God but they say they don't. Nevertheless, they have a high sense of morality. They are disciplined and very particular of manners and proper etiquettes. While in the Philippines and other countries like in Latin America where Christianity is dominant, people most of the time commit things totally opposite to what their religion teaches them. Crime rates are quite alarming and sometimes we can actually question if there are really existing categories like not-so-religious-Christian, a pious one, etc., which can thereby tell us how a person acts and deals with the people around him. Is believing in God really a sole basis to say that someone can attain an unbiased and absolute sense of morality? Does it follow that if one has a God, his perception to what is good and evil is not a subjective one, considered generally accepted good and evil, and is totally different from "what I like and I don't like?"
 
It reminded me of something. Most of my Japanese friends and basically most of the people in Japan don't have a religion. I ask them if they believed in God but they say they don't. Nevertheless, they have a high sense of morality. They are disciplined and very particular of manners and proper etiquettes. While in the Philippines and other countries like in Latin America where Christianity is dominant, people most of the time commit things totally opposite to what their religion teaches them. Crime rates are quite alarming and sometimes we can actually question if there are really existing categories like not-so-religious-Christian, a pious one, etc., which can thereby tell us how a person acts and deals with the people around him. Is believing in God really a sole basis to say that someone can attain an unbiased and absolute sense of morality? Does it follow that if one has a God, his perception to what is good and evil is not a subjective one, considered generally accepted good and evil, and is totally different from "what I like and I don't like?"
Dame kasi agnostic dun pero may mailan ilan naman na sa awa ng dios e makakasama si jesus Christ in the next life
 
It reminded me of something. Most of my Japanese friends and basically most of the people in Japan don't have a religion. I ask them if they believed in God but they say they don't. Nevertheless, they have a high sense of morality. They are disciplined and very particular of manners and proper etiquettes. While in the Philippines and other countries like in Latin America where Christianity is dominant, people most of the time commit things totally opposite to what their religion teaches them. Crime rates are quite alarming and sometimes we can actually question if there are really existing categories like not-so-religious-Christian, a pious one, etc., which can thereby tell us how a person acts and deals with the people around him. Is believing in God really a sole basis to say that someone can attain an unbiased and absolute sense of morality? Does it follow that if one has a God, his perception to what is good and evil is not a subjective one, considered generally accepted good and evil, and is totally different from "what I like and I don't like?"

Even I admire Japanese self-control on their behavior and attitude towards other. Even I thought that if you are religious, you are a good person. Well, atheist can be good same as theist can be bad/evil.

I dont want to get too far on the thread topic as Morality is a different topic. But, to answer your question, and as a believer, we have what is called Ethical Monotheism (i.e. one God is the source of all Morality). God-based Morality is the objective standard to determine between good and evil. Why? Because Morality is not bound by physical nature (there is no moral/immoral atom or gene), therefore it is beyond physical nature. And what is beyond physical nature? You answer it yourself.
 
Even I admire Japanese self-control on their behavior and attitude towards other. Even I thought that if you are religious, you are a good person. Well, atheist can be good same as theist can be bad/evil.

I dont want to get too far on the thread topic as Morality is a different topic. But, to answer your question, and as a believer, we have what is called Ethical Monotheism (i.e. one God is the source of all Morality). God-based Morality is the objective standard to determine between good and evil. Why? Because Morality is not bound by physical nature (there is no moral/immoral atom or gene), therefore it is beyond physical nature. And what is beyond physical nature? You answer it yourself.

Let's say that through objective morality one can conclude that 2+2=4. Then God-based morality says 2+2=5. Will it be considered the absolute and standard basis for all? Is it because of how God works in mysterious ways beyond our own understanding that we can't comprehend through objective understanding that 2+2=5?
 
Let's say that through objective morality one can conclude that 2+2=4. Then God-based morality says 2+2=5. Will it be considered the absolute and standard basis for all? Is it because of how God works in mysterious ways beyond our own understanding that we can't comprehend through objective understanding that 2+2=5?

Mathematics (and reason alone) already proved that 2+2 is not equal to 5. But if your point that if God says that 2+2=5 and is objective but beyond human understanding, then you misunderstood God. Sorry, but the God you think is illogical and incomprehensible. Morality cannot say 2+2=4 or 5 or 100. If the 1st person killed 1 person, and the second killed 3 persons, can we say that the first person is not that much immoral than the second? If you answer yes, then I dont understand you. If you answer no, then your argument is invalid. Again, I dont want to go too far from the thread topic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

About this Thread

  • 48
    Replies
  • 2K
    Views
  • 18
    Participants
Last reply from:
jerriku

Online statistics

Members online
1,177
Guests online
6,052
Total visitors
7,229
Back
Top