What Will Be The Difference In Our Lives If We Dont Believe In God?

[uls]

But with the advent of technology, surely we will survive. We all know that there are people who are already living in extreme conditions. I think that only an end-time scenario of cosmic or nuclear proportions, or fire and brim stone can eliminate our species. But even then, I believe that it will be at an appointed time.

yes modern man has technology to conquer the environment

we have vaccines and medicine that keep people alive. people who would have died are alive today coz we have the technology to intervene

now the human gene pool is polluted with bad genes coz those that are not supposed to live long enough to produce offspring are living long enough to produce offspring

that's why there are many people with diseases of genetic origin

that's why there are many abnormal (physical, mental) people in the world today

man with his technology is capable of keeping almost everyone alive (except those with mutations so bad they cannot be treated even with present technology then die before they can produce offspring)

[uls]

Originally Posted by Quint View Post
If things were so random, don't you think that there will be more asteroids hitting the earth? You ever wonder why they don't happen as often when the moon's surface is so littered with it?

so you're saying God protects the earth but not the moon. hehehe. amazing

Near-Earth Asteroids | What are they? Where do they come from?

Ever since the Earth formed 4.5 billion years ago, it has been bombarded with rocks from space. Each year about 50,000 tons of asteroidal material enters the Earth’s atmosphere. Most of it burns up high in the ionosphere due to friction with air. But a few rocks get through. Impacts in the ocean pass unnoticed, though the larger ones could produce tsunamis. Others strike land and leave craters. This has been going on since the dawn of time and is expected to continue long after the Sun boils away our oceans in about 5 billion years.

Large space rocks are called asteroids, and small ones are called meteoroids. When they streak through the atmosphere they are termed meteors , or “shooting stars”. If they reach the ground, they are called meteorites.

here's a nice answer:

http://greenanswers.com/q/121064/sci...oids-hit-earth

How often do asteroids hit the earth?

Defining exactly what is an "asteroid" is somewhat problematic, as there are numerous types of celestial bodies that could fit into this category. While celestial objects strike the Earth all the time, most of them are very small. Objects between 5 and 10 meters in diameter enter the atmosphere of the Earth about once a year, but they are almost always vaporized before reaching the ground. Fifty-meter or larger asteroids strike about once every 1,000 years, the most recent example being the strike at Tunguska, Russia in June 1908. Very large objects, asteroids 1km or more in diameter, are fortunately extremely rare, striking the earth about once every 500,000 years. Generally, the larger the asteroid, the less likely it is to strike the Earth; for example, an impact of the size theorized to have been involved in the mass extinction of dinosaurs has not happened for at least 65 million years.

Citations:http://www.unb.ca/passc/ImpactDatabase/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_event

[Ry_Tower]

Ry, yung takot mo sa impyerno ang pumipigil sayo pumatay ng tao?

walang impyerno dude

wala

besides, you can always ask for forgiveness

hehe

Correct yan nga pumipigil sa akin. Kaso I believ in a God kaya nga hindi ko ginagawa.

I can understand why others don't, the same way that I do know I do believe in one.

[uls]

^^^

so aside from that wala ibang bagay pumipigil sayo?

how about tama o mali?

so pag wala pala God, walang tama o mali para sayo?

di din hadlang sayo na bawal sa batas ang pumatay? na pwede ka makulong?

[uls]

there's a fine line between...

--

what if one day, a religious leader you really trust and admire quoted a verse from the Holy Book that says you have to kill certain kinds of people. and it is your duty as a believer to kill those certain kinds of people. and that it is a sin if you don't obey. and that you will be rewarded in the afterlife if you do

[Ry_Tower]

really? di ka magdadalawang isip? yung mga nangurakot may mga bodyguard yan. di sila madali patayin. and even if you succeed, meron ha-hunting sayo. may batas tayo. di ka lang ha-hunting-in ng pulis, meron mga maghihiganti para sa mga pinatay mo. gusto mo lagi nagtatago? gusto mo masira buhay mo? ok naman buhay mo ngayon diba? may trabaho, may pamilya, malaya... gusto mo magbago yan?

Won't matter much in the PI if you are an assassin. That's what is really scary.

And regarding sa ".....what if God doesn't exist?" It's 2-way. What if God does exist? Papano na lang din?

Kaya nga yung question ni TS eh iba talaga sagot ng believer sa non-believer. Kaya tatagal lang thread na ito pero wala patutunguhan until someone/somebody changes his stance IMHO. Peace ka-tsikot.

[Ry_Tower]

^^^

so aside from that wala ibang bagay pumipigil sayo?

how about tama o mali?

so pag wala pala God, walang tama o mali para sayo?

Kanino ba nga kais nangaling notion ng tama at mali? Human idea? Pare-pareho lang taypng tao, so technically and relatively, kung walang iisang truth out there, no problem yan.

Tingin ko lang naman dyan.

[Ry_Tower]

there's a fine line between...

--

what if one day, a religious leader you really trust and admire quoted a verse from the Holy Book that says you have to kill certain kinds of people. and it is your duty as a believer to kill those certain kinds of people. and that it is a sin if you don't obey. and that you will be rewarded in the afterlife if you do

That's a Big WHAT IF, at least in my religion. And yun nga eh, believing in a God is not being stupid. I wish I was a theologian to be able to explain this but sadly I can't. Just as Umi once posted, its not just a blind faith.

[uls]

Kanino ba nga kais nangaling notion ng tama at mali? Human idea? Pare-pareho lang taypng tao, so technically and relatively, kung walang iisang truth out there, no problem yan.

Tingin ko lang naman dyan.

before organized religion there was SOCIETY

man is a social animal

in order to be accepted in a group, one had to behave within the boundaries of what that group considers to be acceptable behavior

that's how right and wrong evolved

[samcoy]

According to the Book of Genesis in the Bible:

GOD MADE ANIMALS BEFORE HE MADE MAN:

Genesis 1:25-27
And God made every Animal to their kind, and the Livestock to their kind and all the Creatures that move along the ground... And God said, Let us make man ... So God created man in his own image.

OR.........

GOD MADE ANIMALS AFTER HE MADE MAN

Genesis 2:18-19
And the Lord God said it is not good that man should be Alone; I will make a helper for him. And out of the ground the Lord God formed every Animal, and every fowl of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them.

ANO BA TALAGA???

IF Science was this confused, then we are in TROUBLE.

The account starting from Genesis 2:4 is not a rehash of creation account in Gen chapter 1 to 2 verse 3. It's purpose is to provide additional details that were not mentioned in the previous account. Let's also note that Genesis original language is Hebrew. In Hebrew, you need to consider the context to clearly understand the meaning of some verses like the text in Gen 2: 18, 19. It's clear in Gen 1, that God created land and air animals first then man. That's why in other Bible translations like NIV you will read the following on verse 19:

"Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name."

Notice that the verb "form" is in part perfect tense and therefore there's no contraction. There are other similar translations as you can see in this link http://bible.cc/genesis/2-19.

Moreover, Bible commentators who wanted to stick with the simple past tense of that verb don't see any contradiction at all. Here's what Keil and Delitzsch say:

"The consecutive arrangement (in Gen. 2:19) may be explained on the supposition that the writer, who was about to describe the relation of man to the beast, went back to the creation, in the simple method of the early Semitic historian, and placed this first instead of making it subordinate; so that our modern style of expressing the same would be "God brought to Adam the beast which He had formed."
A striking example of this style of narrative is in 1 Kings 7:13. The building and completion of the temple we noticed several times in chapter 6, and the last time in connection with the year and month, chapter 6:9,14,37,38. After that, the fact is stated that the royal palace was 13 years in building; and then it is related that Solomon fetched Hiram from Tyre, to make 2 pillars. If we are to understand the (WAW/VAV) consecutive here, Solomon would be made to send for the artist 13 years after the temple was finished. It only expresses the thought, "Hiram, whom Solomon fetched from Tyre. -Also note Judges 2:6."

If you would like to verify you can download the source document here http://www.google.com.ph/url?sa=t&so...5YmfT6X5abunog.

Basically, the text in Gen 2: 19 just say that God who is the creator of the animals brought them to Adam. So there's no contradiction.

Again, do your own research so you'll see for yourself.