Dam u str8 babygurl

No. Too many controversies, surrounding all religions and their teachings, for me to believe in a god. Not to mention the very nature of a god in most religions, when inspected under scrutiny, I would not want existing in the first place due to their supposed ideals. For example, I would not worship or want the common Christian God to exist, because supposedly, he would commit someone to eternal suffering, even though he loves them, because they used their brains thst he supposedly gave them to question what they knew and did not worship him.

I believe we should do our best to live humble lives, where we care for our fellow man.

I accept his existence, among other things I merely won't move one way or another on the matter till I get some definite proof, if that doesn't come till I'm dead then so be it. I can wait

Yes I do

Proof of God By Bruce Malone [quote]In the 1700's many scientists believed that life spontaneously generated from non-living matter (such as raw meat or sewage). In the 1800's, using careful experimentation, Louis Pasteur prove this concept wrong and verified that life only comes from previously existing life. Ironically, many scientists have once again return to believe that life came from nonlife... In spite of the fact that there is no experimental evidence to show how that could have happened. The reason this unsupported believe has returned is that science has been defined to eliminate the consideration of the only other alternative; the creation of life by an intelligent designer. Even the simplest living cell is an incredibly complex machine. It must be capable of detecting malfunctions, repairing itself, and making copies of itself. Man has never succeeded in building a machine capable of the same functions. Yet most scientists accept the belief that life arose from nonlife (in spite of the evidence clearly indicating that it did not and could not happen). This incredible belief is as absurd as finding a complex chemical manufacturing facility on Mars and assuming that it built itself. One classic experiment which is used to support the belief that life "built itself" is an experiment by Stanley Miller in 1953. In this experiment sparks were discharged into an apparatus which were circulating common gasses. These gases reacted to form various organic products which were collected and analyzed. Experiment succeeded in producing only a few of the 20 amino acids required by living cells. Yet the results have repeatedly been heralded as evidence that life could have arisen by itself. Furthermore, the dozens of major problems with this experiment as an explanation for the formation of life are seldom reported. For instance, are early atmosphere was assumed to have no oxygen because this would stop amino acid formation. However, with no oxygen, there would be no ozone shield. With no ozone shield, life would also be impossible. Furthermore, oxidize rocks throughout the geologic record indicate that oxygen has always been present. in addition to this, the same gases which can react to form amino acids undergo known reactions in the presence of sunlight which remove them from the atmosphere. The required gases would not have been around long enough for life to develop! In addition, a cold trap was used to keep the reaction products being destroyed as fast as they formed. The biggest problem is that the amino acids form in this experiment always a 50-50 mixture of stereotypes (L and D forms). Stereotypes are like a drawer full of right-hand and left-hand gloves, identical in every way except a mirror image of each other. Life only contains only L stereotypes of these randomly produced amino acids. Yet equal proportions of both types are always produced. How could the first cell have selected only L stereotypes from a random, equally reactive mixture? No anwser to this has ever been found. These are just a few of the problems with the fanciful idea that life generate itself. The leaking of these randomly produced amino acids into the required proteins is an even more overwhelming impossibility. No experiment has ever shown that matter has the ability to come alive. The best explanation for life is still that "life only comes from pre-existing life". As you search for the truth, perhaps you should consider the possibility that the source of all life... Is God. [/quote] [i]Taken from Bruce A. Malone's book, Search for the Truth[/i]

Nope, i dont need the promise of reward to be a good person. I can be good just because it makes me feel good. If i need forgiveness i can reconcile with the person i wronged and/or myself.

Religion is the worlds greatest plecebo. Some people need it so i dont throw shade on them. Let people get their meaning/purpose however the want

I don't know.

I believe in [i]fact[/i].

How to win the forums: Be agnostic.

I'm agnostic too

Yes

Of course, there are many things in this world that don't make sense to us, such as the question how were we created. Personally I always think of it all as a little strange and I don't believe the bad should burn downstairs I personally believe in purgatory, were people are given a second chance and are judged there. I also like the idea that even if you are burning you can still be forgiven for your sins.

there is alot of people on xbox live who are full on racist, i find it funny how many times i,ve been in raid groups when people just say random racist shit and just because i speak with a full on english/brummie accent they dont realise i am indian, what a bunch of dumbasss lol

No one cares

Well, I'm glad to see this thread's comment section is going along as smooth as 5 large beads through a virgin butthole

I've thought a lot about this issue. It's hard to wrap my head around a god. I don't think I believe in one now but I'm keeping my mind open

Nope