Religion Thread

[Glowy]

umm we already proved the big bang theroy guys......worship that

 

[RyanXWing]

Glowpole, you should be working on getting people to worship you!

 

[Krovvy]

So why'd you forget agnosticism then? It is what I am.

It's what I consider myself as well, though closer to the atheist side.

 

[QuikSilver]

There are basics concepts you don't seem to understand here: the concept of infinity, and of how time is relative. Meaning, it can be transformed, or rather, can be observed, differently than what we experience it.

Think of time as clay. It can be made a jar, and it can be made clay again (I think, might not be the best example, not a clay expert ).

Saying that something had to be created is an hypothesis, not a certainity.

I have no more comments! Don't think you didn't get anywhere with your argument; you definitely changed my view of some things (Although you still haven't changed my mind )...
I think its better we move on to a different point!

Would the people who chose other please put down what they actually believe?

 

[Jason]

We can't know how the universe began...who's to say it ever did? The universe could have always existed.

Humans don't know. Humans can't know.

Amen. It's is a large possibility that the human brain simply cannot fathom existence, and that in and of itself explains the constant debate.

Scientology.
Not even kidding.

So you believe aliens created Earth and humans, huh? Lol, John Travolta.

Do you believe that something can appear from nothing? Even a time axis, it must have been set down by something/someone. A universe that repeats itself must have been set off by a creator. To me, this is the most logical explanation.

With that logic then someone or something would have to have created God as well. And that entity whom created God would have to be created by an even higher entity, and thus that creation process would go on forever and you'd never find a true creator because it's simply not possible. This is the one thing that convinced me to deny the existence of any one true God or superior being.

As for my religion?

Your Results:

1. Secular Humanism (100%)

• Secular Humanism
  
• Belief in Deity: Not considered important. Most Humanists are atheists or agnostics.
  
• Incarnations: Same as above.
  
• Origins of universe/life: The scientific method is most respected as the means for revealing the mysteries of the origins of the universe and life.
  
• After death: An afterlife or spiritual existence after death is not recognized.
  
• Why evil? No concept of “evil.†Reasons for wrongdoing are explored through scientific methods, e.g. through study of sociology, psychology, criminology, etc.
  
• Salvation: No concept of afterlife or spiritual liberation or salvation. Realizing ones personal potential and working for the betterment of humanity through ethical consciousness and social works are considered paramount, but from a naturalistic rather than supernatural standpoint.
  
• Undeserved suffering: No spiritual reasons, but rather a matter of human vulnerability to misfortune, illness, and victimization.
  
• Contemporary Issues: The American Humanist Association endorses elective abortion. Other contemporary views include working for equality for homosexuals, gender equality, a secular approach to divorce and remarriage, working to end poverty, promoting peace and non-violence, and environmental protection.

2. Unitarian Universalism (95%)
3. Non-theist (92%)
4. Liberal Quakers (73%)
5. Theravada Buddhism (69%)

 

[Laharl]

I am a devote worshipper of the flying spagetthi monster.

That's my story and I'm sticking by it.

 

[Zoltar]

IM JPING JASON.
I dont have money.
Or else i would have bought this place long ago and made stupid rules just like you know who.

 

[RoaCh of DisCord]

I follow my own form of Paganism. I don't believe in an all encompassing "god"..but what I do believe in (which is a bit hard to explain), are essentially "energies" which exist in nature..and those are what I respect/honor.

 

[AZN_FLEA]

There are basics concepts you don't seem to understand here: the concept of infinity, and of how time is relative. Meaning, it can be transformed, or rather, can be observed, differently than what we experience it.

Think of time as clay. It can be made a jar, and it can be made clay again (I think, might not be the best example, not a clay expert ).

Saying that something had to be created is an hypothesis, not a certainity.

this theory goes like this right?: big bang. universe expands. universe starts contracting. big crunch.

how does the universe keep expanding? shouldnt there be a place where the universe ends? whats outside the universe? the theory also states that a big crunch will occur. this is supposedly caused by black holes. the combined strength of blackholes cause the contraction. however, that means that there is a force expanding the universe. what is the force and why isnt it stopped? what was there before the earliest big bang?

you can ignore that if you want but this might disprove the theory.

how is the energy conserved through the big bang/crunches? E=mc2. energy is related to mass. there is a limited amount of mass that can go in a certain volume. atoms are considered 99.99% space. that means for atom space there can only be 10 000 atoms. this is a phenomenally small number for the amont of matter in the un

i cant be stuffed anymore. **** this

 

[TrongaMonga]

It's very complicated to grasp if you lack the minimal imagination requirements to be honest

Just think of inside the Universe as everything and outside of the Universe as nothing. As in, complete absence of everything.

there is a limited amount of mass that can go in a certain volume.

Compression, my friend. It's what makes your car's engine work, and it is what creates the Universe. The Big Crunch, if there is any, is capable of compression the mass in the universe to a level we can't even begin to grasp. It does it so much that all mass is practically destroyed and becomes impossible to identify it as molecules, atoms and heck, even quarks. It practically becomes energy. Which doesn't really require a volume.

But my analogy with an engine is almost complete, except for the fact there is not outside spark: The Big Crunch moves everything in the universe into a hole, and remember that the energy is indeed conserved. But, due to entropy, there will always be some of that contraction energy (because such a huge force requires use of energy, as all do) that will turn into heat, sound, etc. And, as you can imagine, the temperature of having the whole universe stuffed into something the size of an atom is of unimaginable high levels.

And heat is one of the best catalyzers out there.

So basically, the universe contracts itself around one spot. The energy of that contraction is so immense that there will be a time where it can't hold itself. Then, it explodes. And recreates everything.

But still, this is all theory for kids (no offense ), it might even not be well explained. And it might not be true at all.

As for the question if it is even expanding, there was this Cosmic microwave background radiation discovered decades ago, and that radiation is thought to be the reminiscent of the Big Bang (it was such a gargantuan explosion that the center of the universe still radiates energy from the last universe).

Still, as I said: It might not be true, but it sure as hell makes lots more logic than just saying some old man with white long beards said 'There will be light' and yawned at seventh day out of boredom.

 

[QuikSilver]

How did something (the universe) come from nothing? I honestly think it is more logical to think of something that was of infinite power that created everything. Rather than what you said above.

 

[Jason]

How did something (the universe) come from nothing? I honestly think it is more logical to think of something that was of infinite power that created everything. Rather than what you said above.

Way to skip over my post.

 

[QuikSilver]

Way to skip over my post.

I read it a while ago...I forgot it was there!

But anyways, I think that there must have been an ultimate creator who did not have to be created because of his inifnite power and existance. I deny the theory that the earth was formed due to an infinite cycle because I totally think the theory of evolution is BS (for the most part). Also, my only explanation for the complexity of the earth and all the life forms is "intelligent design". <=== which is kind of a different topic

 

[concrete_sox]

who made god may i ask

 

[QuikSilver]

Read the 2nd paragraph of my post above you...

 

[concrete_sox]

but i want an opinion from someone with an i.q. over 10 sry

 

[Lizardbreath]

Religion is for the weak and uneducated.

 

[Metal Gear Flash]

losing my religion - REM

 

[TrongaMonga]

How did something (the universe) come from nothing? I honestly think it is more logical to think of something that was of infinite power that created everything. Rather than what you said above.

I reckon that's the whole basis of religions, to believe in dogmas that can not be disproved (or proved, mind you). Which is why I don't believe or stop believing in everything, an open mind is far more important than saying some guy killed himself to save us.

Religions are about morality, not about stories to tell children.

That is why I believe more in something that is not impossible to be proven (the fact that the universe is a cycle. Might not be easy to prove, but it is provable if it is true), than something that just can't be proved (the existence of something that created everything, which even if true can not be scientifically proved, unless he speaks to us, and that's not science).

 

[Vadriel]

I read it a while ago...I forgot it was there!

But anyways, I think that there must have been an ultimate creator who did not have to be created because of his inifnite power and existance. I deny the theory that the earth was formed due to an infinite cycle because I totally think the theory of evolution is BS (for the most part). Also, my only explanation for the complexity of the earth and all the life forms is "intelligent design". <=== which is kind of a different topic

You say that a singular being may be of infinite power and existance, and therefore not have ever needed to have been created and could simply exist and have always existed, and yet you refuse to acknowledge that possibility for something as infinitely expansive and powerful as existance and time?

I'd think it'd be far less likely for any being to "have always existed with no genesis" than for a simple state of being to "have always existed with no genesis." Think about it, if nothing existed save this entity, what sort of environment would it inhabit? With literally nothing to experience or sense, not even the concept of THOUGHT, what would it DO? Float aimlessly and eternally through nonexistance until a shockwave of its energies accidentally brought existance into play?

Such a being could not exist outside of existance. With no matter, no energy, not even a sense of consciousness (as these are all truly confined within the realm of Existance), there could be no "intelligent design" because simply there would be no intelligence.

A viable "God" theory would be that a being with abilities incomprehensible to the human mind could have existed within our universe and created the Earth with all of its tiniest details and mathematical systems.

Another theory could even be that "God" existed outside of our universe, but within another universe, and he created ours...but the idea that anything could have ever existed outside of existance itself is a fundamental impossibility. If anything, EXISTANCE is the eternal, and from it God was born and shaped it. Who knows, maybe the genesis of existance and God was simultaneous, but I still say it's not even possible for God to have come first.