Pastafarians

[fixxervi6]

Do tell

Both sides speak in absolutes with no proof, atheists have no proof that god does not exist therefore they convince themselves that this can be the only truth without proof, because science does not state god does not exist, its not evidence. If they do not open themsevles to saying at least "maybe" then they are just as closed minded as those on the other side, they are the same in my book.

There is a difference between saying, god does not exist, and I don't think god exists.

[Firewa11]

Do tell

Both sides speak in absolutes with no proof, atheists have no proof that god does not exist therefore they convince themselves that this can be the only truth without proof, because science does not state god does not exist, its not evidence. If they do not open themsevles to saying at least "maybe" then they are just as closed minded as those on the other side, they are the same in my book.

There is a difference between saying, god does not exist, and I don't think god exists.

And this is why I would consider myself agnostic. Because I absolutely believe there is no way to prove or disprove the existance of God or gods, religion is based on faith. I am not so close-minded to believe that what I don't know or hasn't been proven doesn't exist. Nor am I so close-minded to blindly believe something that because I'm taught something exists with no proof. I have absolute faith that there are forces at work we don't understand and can't comprehend. Just because we haven't proven this, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And I don't believe that the words written by a group of men thousands of years ago should be taken in absolutes and followed blindly, word-for-word.

I believe that in the history of religion, time has brought about the need for adaptation and change based on our ever growing knowledge of the world around us. Historically, old religions die and new ones are born based more on understanding on the science around us. That doesn't mean science kills religion, it means it forces religions to adapt and grow. Rigid, inflexible religious beliefs are the hardest to adapt and change. Early religions in time of tribal man were very primitive to us, based on the understanding at the time of the world around them. The only successful religions are those that can adapt and morph. Those that are rigid will die.

If your religion believes the earth was created only 5,000 years ago, and it is inflexible, the understanding of the earth and the cold hard facts disproves this, so therefore your religion is faulted. People as stubborn as they are will not change, until only the ignorant are left believing it, and in time eventually dies out. At one time the majority of the population of the earth believed that the stars were gods, but in time our understanding proved this was not the case. Or that the earth was at the center of the universe. Does anyone really believe this anymore?

Keep in mind most of the modern religions are really no more than 2000-3000 years old at most. And those have had to adapt over time. The Jewish and Greek versions started around 2500 years ago, and 2012 years ago they adapted further adding Christ, and formed the basis of a lot of Christian values. And the differences between the old and new testemant are pretty starkly contrasted. Still the same beliefs, but modified and adapted for a changing world. And the same goes for Muslims, Hindus, buddists, etc.

Anyways, like I said, I'm agnostic because I don't believe it's possible to prove or disprove religion, but I certainly have an open mind to either situation. My core morals and values were instilled from Christianity, and I'd like to think I'm a good person because of it. I don't fault anyone for their beliefs, because again, who am I to tell you what brings you joy and comfort is wrong? That's no better than a person of religion telling me I'm wrong for believing what I believe and that I don't believe in what they do.

Live and let live. Be free and let others be free. Life your life as a good, honest, caring person, and believe whatever you will. And don't force your beliefs on me and I won't force mine on you.

[milesmiles]

Anyone want to come to church with me?!?! <--incase you didn't know that was a joke, but if you do that's cool to haha

[Bailout]

Do tell

Both sides speak in absolutes with no proof, atheists have no proof that god does not exist therefore they convince themselves that this can be the only truth without proof, because science does not state god does not exist, its not evidence. If they do not open themsevles to saying at least "maybe" then they are just as closed minded as those on the other side, they are the same in my book.

There is a difference between saying, god does not exist, and I don't think god exists.

That is a very interesting point but in the terms of " atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities" and "agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves there is a God, whereas an atheist disbelieves in God".

I totally agree that you hav to hav "Faith" in something to disbelieve it. Hence where is it that one can just not believe anything until it is proven then go with facts?

Can we starts a Factanarian branch to the pastafarian?

[Bailout]

Anyone want to come to church with me?!?! <--incase you didn't know that was a joke, but if you do that's cool to haha

Love to go to church withyou sometime. Dang good people in those places for the most part!!

[U-Turn]

Pretty girls in church. All dressed up in the "Innocent Look".
-
I'm just saying.

[fixxervi6]

I totally agree that you hav to hav "Faith" in something to disbelieve it. Hence where is it that one can just not believe anything until it is proven then go with facts?

You'd have to wait until your dead, thats the problem, there is no solid proof god exists, there is no solid proof god does not exist.

In many religions if you just wait, it's too late your going to burn or something like that.

Check out Deism, you may find it interesting.

I do beleive in a "creator" but I hesitate to use the word god because of what people assocate the word god with, I do not believe in some dude with a beard and a white robe. For all I know god could be in us, kind of like starwars, "the force" or, the universe itself, I don't know, I dont' have knowledge on "god".

Humans invented religion
Humans wrote the worlds bibles (don't even try to feed me "prophets")
Humans are much more "animal" like than we want to beleive

The best I can figure, there were smart people writing those books, people "follow" them and they say it has changed their lives, therefore they "feel" it must be divine.

Can we all agree Ron Hubbard was a science fiction writer and founder of a big religion?
The man was intelligent

I've been to their church and asked of their teachings, I know 100% that if 99% of us started with that religion it would change us, you would feel better, more confident etc. Do I think its divine? no, the dude was just smart, and you can get similar results in many other programs that are not religous based.

There are tons of things you can follow in the bible, that will have a possitive impact in your life, that doesn't make it divine, that means there were some thinkers behind it.

Following the teachings of Buda can have a possitive impact in your life, and he is not a "son of god"

Following islam can have possitive impacts in your life, and I don't mean the nut bags running around with bang vests on, and guess who wrote that? some dude, that didn't "rise from the dead" or even perform miracles.

Follow my thing, and it will have possitive imapcts in your life (but you gotta pay me first!)

Also, if you want something bad enough, and you look hard enough, you will see what you want to see. The thought of no afterlife imo drives people to look for what they want to find and they will do so blindly.

I want there to be a heaven, I really do, but I can't bring myself to fall in line and swallow that stuff they "teach" to beleive in something that is completely illogical.

That doesn't mean I will stand here and say, there is no afterlife, I don't know, maybe you just rot, maybe your life force is transfered to another being, maybe we are part of one life force and we return to the center when we are done (gia) etc, no one knows except the dead, assuming they are just not rotting away.

I can tell you I don't believe I'd be running around with a bunch of virgins (virgins are over rated anyway, whats up with that?) or be walking in the clouds in a white robe forever - talk about getting board.

Heaven is an irrational, illogical solution to a problem of fear that 99.9999% of humans have, and of course its hard to control a human without "fear" therefore hell is invented as a control factor, if I can hook you on the bait that you want (heaven), then I can control you with the fear of what you do not want, and no one wants to burn forever.

[DemonDuck]

ALIENS!

[Bailout]

That is just it. There are no answers to the questions we have only possibilities.

Myself I believe that the earth is billions years old, christianity has good stories and values to follow but no guy in a long white beard pointing a finger at me, no predetermined destiny, but there is definatley a connection between humans that cannot be explained by science.

Have read quite a lot about deism and think it is fascinating and very interesting, especially when most of the idools (so to speak) were made up due to the need of the group. Find someothing someon is desperate about and explain to them that it is not there fault, and they do not have to deal with their feelings just do a routine and give some corn and poof you are guilt free.

In my opinion religion is easy, "I did not mean to kill those people but I did and God has determined my destiny so it was meant to be" That said....There is no free will because the god described in the bible is all knowing of past present and future so to say he doesnt know how it will end is a robot killer arguement

[WillK675]

I'd just like to clear something up. "Seperation of church and state" is in reference to a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. The intention of this is to keep the goverment out of religion, thus allowing our freedom of religion. It is not based to keep religion out of the government, schools, etc. There are only two laws that reflects anything in regards to "seperation of church and state"; one regarding eligibility for public office (article 6), and the other being the first amendment...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

And as it reads, creating laws denying any religion in schools, or not saying the pledge due to the word "God" is IMHO a direct violation of the first ammendment. I completely agree, that people also have thier rights to not say a prayer, etc.. Thus, if they choose not to say the pledge of allegence, or pray, then so be it; it's their choice.

[Rhino]

Yep, what Will said.

The US has established freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

Remember this country was founded by very religious people seeking a place to practice their religion openly.

[Bailout]

Yep, what Will said.

The US has established freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

Remember this country was founded by very religious people seeking a place to practice their religion openly.

Agree totally!

You can't tell me what I believe and I cant tell you what you believe!.....Wait doesnt the bible say something like that anyway....live and let live??? Or was that paul McCartney??

[Striple]

I'm all for anyone being able to believe in anything they want, as long as those beliefs are not forced on anyone else. Unfortunately, it is can be quite difficult to escape religion, because people's beliefs affect the politics and resulting policies at nearly every level. Since my job is in science and education, I can tell you how frustrating it is to have to argue with people over why creationism cannot be taught in the science classroom, or why the principles of evolution are based on massive amounts of empirical data, etc. The idea that some of those topics are still controversial in this country in the 21st century is downright shocking.

I can sympathize with the notion that following a certain faith can provide people with hope, but unfortunately the religious platform is all too frequently abused to do things that I find morally appalling.

On a lighter note, I recently came across this flowchart on FB:

[Rhino]

Striple, that's brilliant. So your decision points:

- Number of gods
- Bacon
- Owning a black cat
- Hummus
- Reincarnation
- Rich and insane
- Naturally annoying person
- Magic underwear (!)

[DemonDuck]

I actually had a science teacher that I liked a whole lot... in fact he was one of my football coaches as well. He was going through the big bang theory and someone had asked him about the fact that he is really religious and was a science teacher. He went on to tell us that in his mind science helps explain the bible. He said that in the big bang theory for instance there was a giant explosion.... in the bible ... let there be light. He went on about how evolution.... and in the bible God made plants then animals then humans. Now people would say that this does not go together because this took billions of years in science but only days in the bible. But what is a day to God?

[Rhino]

DD, that's actually Stephen Hawking's approach as well. He straight up says in A Brief History of Time that science breaks down a few milliseconds after the Big Bang and can't explain anything about what is outside the stuff that exploded or what put it there in the first place. He says that if there's a God that created the universe, that's what he created--a ball of "stuff" that exploded out to be our universe.

I personally like that approach. How much awesome power would God have to have to create this little ball of energy that would explode into an entire universe?

[Grinner]

How much awesome power would God have to have to create this little ball of energy that would explode into an entire universe?

He just used his trusty Zippo and a looooooooooong strand of cannon fuse! Him and Mother Nature had a heckuva laugh from the explosion!

[Rhino]

How much awesome power would God have to have to create this little ball of energy that would explode into an entire universe?

He just used his trusty Zippo and a looooooooooong strand of cannon fuse! Him and Mother Nature had a heckuva laugh from the explosion!

Holy chit, that bomb had PEOPLE in it! Lookit'em go!

[Firewa11]

Some speculate the universe repeats itself. Mass eventually pulls together to the point of creating such a dense 'core' that pulls everything in so incredibly tight that it can't contain itself anymore and explodes out. And eventually pulls itself back together, after a very, very long, lifeless, cold world without heat and light, until gravity every so slowly pulls things back into a single, solitary mass.

What we already know of the world around us, black holes, super black holes, etc, are formed when a giant star or star cluster collapses in itself, once it no longer has the 'engine' that provides the thermal expansion with the mass it has at it's core. Once it 'dies', light, energy, etc. can't escape and pulls matter in. The more matter it pulls in, the more mass it has, the more gravity, feeding and feeding on everything around it until eventually, after a very, very, very long time, it pulls everything in. Take bajillions of these same super black holes, all slowly, slowly pulling each other in, until you get every bit of matter and particle pulled back together until you again reach a critical point.

Here's the real question though. Was the critical point caused by having all of the mass back together? Or is there a specific point at which matter and energy has to be 'back in the box' so to speak. What happens if you lose a piece?

[fireblade]

Or the universe could be a giant hologram!!!

The holographic principle is a property of quantum gravity and string theories which states that the description of a volume of space can be thought of as encoded on a boundary to the region—preferably a light-like boundary like a gravitational horizon. String theory admits a lower dimensional description in which gravity emerges from it in what would now be called a holographic way.

In a larger and more speculative sense, the theory suggests that the entire universe can be seen as a two-dimensional information structure "painted" on the cosmological horizon, such that the three dimensions we observe are only an effective description at macroscopic scales and at low energies. Cosmological holography has not been made mathematically precise, partly because the cosmological horizon has a finite area and grows with time.

The holographic principle was inspired by black hole thermodynamics, which implies that the maximal entropy in any region scales with the radius squared, and not cubed as might be expected. In the case of a black hole, the insight was that the informational content of all the objects which have fallen into the hole can be entirely contained in surface fluctuations of the event horizon. The holographic principle resolves the black hole information paradox within the framework of string theory.

Think about that!!
I watched OETA one day, it was cool.

[Firewa11]

You sir, are a plagiarist. Heh. I don't buy into the holographic principle with regards to the entire universe.

[fireblade]

of course I am, I aint good with them big words. I did watch the show tho, it was cool.

edit: I never said those were my thoughts anyhow, I just heard of the subject. I thought we were getting rediculous in here.

[Firewa11]

Yeah, I've seen a few out there. The last one I saw was the most informative. Universal expansion is a given, we can witness this. Universal contraction is a big 'what if'.

[fixxervi6]

In order to really understand all of this, you gotta roll a big fatty

[Firewa11]

In order to really understand all of this, you gotta roll a big fatty

Or at least have an open enough mind to vent when your brain starts cooking. I've seen someone go into seizures just when they were beginning to start to wrap their head around the concept of infinity.

Voyager 1 is traveling away from our sun at a speed of about 38,400 mph.

It will take roughly 17,500 years to travel just 1 light year. The nearest star to us is about 4.2 light years away. So travelling 38,400mph, it would take you around 73,000 years to get to the nearest star, traveling at 38,400mph.

The edge of the observable universe is somewhere around 45 billion light years away.

Meaning, if you were to hop in your spaceship and head out going 38,400 mph, it would take you 787,500,000,000,000 years to get there. And by then, the observable universe will have likely radically expanded, meaning that it would likely be exponentially larger than it was when you started out.

Now put THAT in your pipe and smoke it.