Your standing on religion

[runesmithie]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your 'rolling of the eyes' is not respectful. It is no more than childish mockery.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even so, I am being much more patient than my opposition. That's all I'm striving for, I don't need to go farther than that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then maybe you shouldn't come of as expecting every teen to know about these sort of things then, eh?

[kirbybeam]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then maybe you shouldn't come of as expecting every teen to know about these sort of things then, eh?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm 16 years old. And quite frankly, if you are going to say that I don't know what I'm talking about, then you damn well better know the material you claim I don't know. It's not my fault that some people are snobs that can't accept new information.

[runesmithie]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then maybe you shouldn't come of as expecting every teen to know about these sort of things then, eh?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm 16 years old.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just because your school offers classes like that or that you study it in your spare time doesn't mean anything...

[logic-is-overrated]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then maybe you shouldn't come of as expecting every teen to know about these sort of things then, eh?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm 16 years old.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just because your school offers classes like that or that you study it in your spare time doesn't mean anything...

He's not expecting everybody to know what he's talking about, he's expecting the person who's arguing with him to know what he's talking about.

[Faux]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then maybe you shouldn't come of as expecting every teen to know about these sort of things then, eh?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm 16 years old.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just because your school offers classes like that or that you study it in your spare time doesn't mean anything...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rofl :lol:

[kirbybeam]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just because your school offers classes like that or that you study it in your spare time doesn't mean anything...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually it does. It means you are being a jerk. Just admit that you were wrong already instead of blaming me for knowing more than you.

[MyPurpleCrayon]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your 'rolling of the eyes' is not respectful. It is no more than childish mockery.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even so, I am being much more patient than my opposition. That's all I'm striving for, I don't need to go farther than that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I still don't understand how two laws that have been around for ages can contradict each other. It makes no sense to me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Argument from ignorance. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it is wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

These "laws' are NOT absolute; perhaps that's what is causing your confusion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I was not trying to start an argument based on me not understanding something. I was wondering if you could explain it, not jump down my throat.

[kirbybeam]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I was not trying to start an argument based on me not understanding something. I was wondering if you could explain it, not jump down my throat.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, it's hard to tell these days. :?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyways... I'm not sure how much more to explain.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

all I'm saying is that subatomic particles pop in and out of existence due to the uncertainty principle. Because the uncertainty principle is not just about location and acceleration; it is also about time and energy. That is, the more that is known about the time, the less there is known about the energy. That's why in VERY short time spans (like one billionth of a billionth of a second), energy suddenly comes and dissipates for no reason.

[runesmithie]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just because your school offers classes like that or that you study it in your spare time doesn't mean anything...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually it does. It means you are being a jerk. Just admit that you were wrong already instead of blaming me for knowing more than you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you had cared to read, this particular train of thought was because of your overuse of the rolleye smileys, which lead people to think that you think this is "standard knowledge" for the 16 year old.

[Futurama]

Atheist.

 

 

 

Only religion that makes sense to me is Buddhism. Not worshipping a god but trying to achieve what a normal guy did, or at least thats what i got from it - I don't believe in worshipping someone i havn't met.

[kirbybeam]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just because your school offers classes like that or that you study it in your spare time doesn't mean anything...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually it does. It means you are being a jerk. Just admit that you were wrong already instead of blaming me for knowing more than you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you had cared to read, this particular train of thought was because of your overuse of the rolleye smileys, which lead people to think that you think this is "standard knowledge" for the 16 year old.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It should be "standard knowledge" for those who claim I don't know what I am talking about.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I know people who are legitimately against Quantum Physics (seeing as how Einstein himself was at odds with it)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's what I assumed his position was. I guess I was wrong. It isn't my fault, it was his, because he stated:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This guy has no idea what he is talking about!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He brought up the Uncertainty Principle, is it MY fault that he wasn't familiar with it? :roll:

[Howie101]

religion...is all stories inside a book

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

believe what you want and dont critisize others...geez someone made this topic to just get a lot of posts and flaming...suggested rants possibly next time...just a shame im adding to it

[knives669]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just because your school offers classes like that or that you study it in your spare time doesn't mean anything...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually it does. It means you are being a jerk. Just admit that you were wrong already instead of blaming me for knowing more than you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you had cared to read, this particular train of thought was because of your overuse of the rolleye smileys, which lead people to think that you think this is "standard knowledge" for the 16 year old.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It should be "standard knowledge" for those who claim I don't know what I am talking about.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I know people who are legitimately against Quantum Physics (seeing as how Einstein himself was at odds with it)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's what I assumed his position was. I guess I was wrong. It isn't my fault, it was his, because he stated:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This guy has no idea what he is talking about!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He brought up the Uncertainty Principle, is it MY fault that he wasn't familiar with it? :roll:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It certainly isn't your fault that most of the people here aren't familiar with quantum physics, but what is your fault is the starting of a huge argument about physics in a thread about religion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now, I'm not trying to take sides here, man, but I've read this whole debate and it really seems as though you started it, immediately getting offensive when it seemed as though someone was disagreeing with you. Not to mention you haven't been very patient or respectful to everyone else. However, I guess I can understand your frustration up to this point.

 

 

 

But, frustration doesn't give you or anyone else the right to act arrogant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm just saying, can't we all just get along?

[insane]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I was not trying to start an argument based on me not understanding something. I was wondering if you could explain it, not jump down my throat.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, it's hard to tell these days. :?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyways... I'm not sure how much more to explain.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

all I'm saying is that subatomic particles pop in and out of existence due to the uncertainty principle. Because the uncertainty principle is not just about location and acceleration; it is also about time and energy. That is, the more that is known about the time, the less there is known about the energy. That's why in VERY short time spans (like one billionth of a billionth of a second), energy suddenly comes and dissipates for no reason.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Forgive my ignorance of quantum physics, but this uncertainty principle simply states that values cannot be assigned to times/acceleration, etc of particles. So when energy suddenly comes and dissipates,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a. How are we supposed to know that energy is coming and dissipating, and when, if this principle states that we cannot know this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

b. Again, if we cannot assign values to this 'energy', this energy just 'coming into existence' would appear to be the knowledge of the energy, not the energy itself, since we cannot assign values to it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even if I'm wrong, the end result is that the energy dissipates in a billionth of a billionth of a second - the energy making up this universe has certainly been around much longer than that!

[kirbybeam]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It certainly isn't your fault that most of the people here aren't familiar with quantum physics, but what is your fault is the starting of a huge argument about physics in a thread about religion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I had no idea I would receive so much opposition for such a basic proposition. Someone made the erroneous claim that Mass-energy cannot be created or destroyed, and I corrected them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now, I'm not trying to take sides here, man, but I've read this whole debate and it really seems as though you started it, immediately getting offensive when it seemed as though someone was disagreeing with you. Not to mention you haven't been very patient or respectful to everyone else. However, I guess I can understand your frustration up to this point.

 

 

 

But, frustration doesn't give you or anyone else the right to act arrogant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm just saying, can't we all just get along?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In any case, I'm not going to argue this in this thread anymore; if you have a problem, then send me a private message.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Forgive my ignorance of quantum physics, but this uncertainty principle simply states that values cannot be assigned to times/acceleration, etc of particles. So when energy suddenly comes and dissipates,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Generalized applications

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The uncertainty principle does not just apply to position and momentum. In its general form, it applies to every pair of conjugate variables. An example of a pair of conjugate variables is the x-component of angular momentum (spin) vs. the y-component of angular momentum. In general, and unlike the case of position versus momentum discussed above, the lower bound for the product of the uncertainties of two conjugate variables depends on the system state.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertaint ... plications

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mass and time are a pair of conjugate variables.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a. How are we supposed to know that energy is coming and dissipating, and when, if this principle states that we cannot know this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure how you reason this. All it states is that the more we know about the amount of energy involved, the less we know about the time it took for the energy to appear and disappear.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

b. Again, if we cannot assign values to this 'energy', this energy just 'coming into existence' would appear to be the knowledge of the energy, not the energy itself, since we cannot assign values to it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't understand what you are saying here at all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even if I'm wrong, the end result is that the energy dissipates in a billionth of a billionth of a second - the energy making up this universe has certainly been around much longer than that!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Seeing as how the laws of physics did (do?) not apply at t=0 (the beginning of the universe), I fail to see how you connect these two.

[runesmithie]

 

 

 

In any case, I'm not going to argue this in this thread anymore; if you have a problem, then send me a private message.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let's just end this whole thing with a quote :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Speaker: "And the winner is ... Number 3, in a quantum finish."

 

 

 

Farnsworth: "No fair! You changed the outcome by measuring it!"

[Pete_the_Viscous]

 

 

 

Seeing as how the laws of physics did (do?) not apply at t=0 (the beginning of the universe), I fail to see how you connect these two.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is exactly what I'm talking about: how on earth do you know that the laws of physics did or do not apply at the beginning of the universe? Were you there? Which laws, exactly, and in what way? How do you even know there was a beginning to the universe? Supposing there were a beginning, (which I'm only debating for the sake of argument) -- the laws that you say don't apply are laws created by people, not real laws of physics in a decent sense: they are models, not... unbreakable, perfect explanations for everything.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You may know a lot about physics -- or at least are good at finding relevant wikipedia articles -- but the more you know about physics, the more you should relise that you don't know squat*. Theoretical physics is so called for a reason. You may find this useful.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*I realise you obviously know things -- anything compared to the infinity of knowledge out there is to be considered squat, however -- it's just peanuts to space, remember.

[kirbybeam]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is exactly what I'm talking about: how on earth do you know that the laws of physics did or do not apply at the beginning of the universe?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because when matter becomes so dense then the laws of physics break down.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Were you there?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, but that doesn't matter. I wasn't there when Rome fell, but I still know about it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Which laws, exactly, and in what way?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All of them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How do you even know there was a beginning to the universe?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because the universe is expanding, and thus if we look backwards it is contracting, and that means that there was a beginning.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Supposing there were a beginning, (which I'm only debating for the sake of argument) -- the laws that you say don't apply are laws created by people, not real laws of physics in a decent sense: they are models, not... unbreakable, perfect explanations for everything.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You are right. But the thing is, these models work, that's why we use them. The goal of science is not to find out how the universe actually works, just how it appears to work to us.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is analogous to an unopenable pocke[bleep]ch. We can see the hands moving, but we can't open the thing and look inside. That's why we create models of what could be inside the watch (which accounts for the movement of the hands). In the same way, we look at the universe, create laws that we think that the universe follows, but will we ever know the actual thing? No way.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You may know a lot about physics -- or at least are good at finding relevant wikipedia articles -- but the more you know about physics, the more you should relise that you don't know squat*. Theoretical physics is so called for a reason. You may find this useful.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree. But that's not true for just physics, but for every topic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*I realise you obviously know things -- anything compared to the infinity of knowledge out there is to be considered squat, however -- it's just peanuts to space, remember.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exactly.

[MyPurpleCrayon]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is exactly what I'm talking about: how on earth do you know that the laws of physics did or do not apply at the beginning of the universe?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because when matter becomes so dense then the laws of physics break down.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Were you there?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, but that doesn't matter. I wasn't there when Rome fell, but I still know about it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Which laws, exactly, and in what way?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All of them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How do you even know there was a beginning to the universe?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because the universe is expanding, and thus if we look backwards it is contracting, and that means that there was a beginning.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Supposing there were a beginning, (which I'm only debating for the sake of argument) -- the laws that you say don't apply are laws created by people, not real laws of physics in a decent sense: they are models, not... unbreakable, perfect explanations for everything.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You are right. But the thing is, these models work, that's why we use them. The goal of science is not to find out how the universe actually works, just how it appears to work to us.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is analogous to an unopenable pocke[bleep]ch. We can see the hands moving, but we can't open the thing and look inside. That's why we create models of what could be inside the watch (which accounts for the movement of the hands). In the same way, we look at the universe, create laws that we think that the universe follows, but will we ever know the actual thing? No way.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You may know a lot about physics -- or at least are good at finding relevant wikipedia articles -- but the more you know about physics, the more you should relise that you don't know squat*. Theoretical physics is so called for a reason. You may find this useful.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree. But that's not true for just physics, but for every topic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*I realise you obviously know things -- anything compared to the infinity of knowledge out there is to be considered squat, however -- it's just peanuts to space, remember.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exactly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, this has everything to do with religion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And yes, kirbybeam has no life and spends way too much time making his posts.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

 

 

Yes, this has everything to do with religion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And yes, kirbybeam has no life and spends way too much time making his posts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Although what you quoted doesn't have anything directly to do with religion, I believe physics on the other hand does have an important role with religion. Not only can it give insight into theistic god but it also compliments naturalistic pantheism (God is everywhere/everything/reality). Some of the most famous physicists are pantheists such as Albert Einstein and Carl Sagan, to me there seems to be some sort of intrinsic connection between religion and physics. ThatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s why you see things such as the big bang comes up in discussion and many religiously vocal physicists.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

It's actually placed elsewhere ;)

 

 

 

Energy is never destroyed :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Um... Energy can be created and destroyed...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quantum Physics explains how.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle makes it so that matter is being created and destroyed all the time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you want to be technical, energy fluctuation is a quantum effect not a macro effect. Sure energy can be created and destroyed by it doesn't happen in our every day experience (thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s why the ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Ålaw of the conservation of energyÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[Pete_the_Viscous]

All his/her responces.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

First off, death_by_pod made a good point about physics being able to explain things, and so being useful in discussing religion -- quite true, but not constant blurting out of laws as if they are of any relevance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now, kirbybeam, you just don't seem to grasp what I'm saying here. Your own analogy of the unopenable pocke[bleep]ch illustrates what I'm saying well: you don't and will never know whether or not any of these laws are ultimately correct.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You say the universe is expanding? Sure, it seems that way; yet you don't know for sure. In this way, you cannot be sure that it had a beginning. In fact, in no way can you be sure.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You say that physics is used to explain how things seem to work to us: true, and this is a good point, relevant to religious topics. What is not relevant is each individual law that you believe the universe seems to work by. Unless, of course, you are simply telling us how you think the world works -- in this case, it would be better to refer us to a text book.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, what you seemed to be doing was trying to refute other peoples' religious arguments with your knowledge of Physics. This does not work. In admitting that you cannot open the pocke[bleep]ch, you simultaneously admit that you know just as little as the religious types about the universe and the way it works. Sure, your way is the way that actually seems to work, but you have said yourself that you will never know the actual "thing" itself. You must understand: to them, what they have said is just as valid as your Physics. I may happen to agree with you, and not them, but that doesn't mean I think your argument holds any water in this field.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, and you said that the whole "the more you know, the more you realise that you don't know" was true for all topics? Well... yes and no. It's not quite the same, but those who "have religion" often believe that, in knowing their love for god, they know all they need to know, which is a shame.

[katsuro0]

religion is just the result of people not having anything better to think about. religion has done some good things for the world, but the only thing i see come from religion is fighting, wars, arguements, and stupidity. Just take a look at all the major conflicts in the world today: political correctness, israel, terrorists. almost everything is over religion, which is just really stupid imo.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

People seriously have to start using logic when it comes down to religion. And ill do my best to explain my views here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Did a god create the earth? no. The old testament was written by a bunch of people during the babylonian captivity. LONG after any of the events in the old testament occured. The only purpose of the old testament was to give hope to the jews and to set moral standards. The Bible is just a bunch of stories, nothing else.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

where did the matter in the universe come from?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=631

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

if you want to learn all about cosmology, browse that site. its very good.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Did a god create life? no. When the earth was first created it was not suitable for life. Eventually through chemical processes (which have been duplicated in a lab), RNA was made. Eventually DNA was made and the first organisms. Did natural selection and evolution played its role. If you want to know more, there are good books and websites out there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you are unsure of evolution, don't think its possible, ect, then i can tell you one thing. It's a hell of a lot more logical than some anti-physics being clapping his hands and pointing his finger (exagerrated, i know). And all the evidence points towards science, whereas ABSOLUTELY no evidence shows that a god had a role.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

besides, we see evolution on a small scale everyday. that is bacteria becoming resistant to lotions and everything.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. possibility of a god? maybe, but it's very slim. The only way i see a god having an impact on the universe is probably the very beginning. cause that's where physics and everything breaks down. I can tell you, however, that there is no such thing as a heaven, hell, or soul. We are chemical beings when it comes down to it, and religion is just an attempt to explain what we don't understand.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The only religion that pretty much makes sense is buddaism (im not buddist) because it tries to create peace and happiness in THIS life, not when we are dead. everyone already knows that when your body shuts down, you're at peace. (although i think the zen and karma is a load of bs)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i on the other hand am religious, but not religious in the sense that i worship something that i know is not real. You can be religious with nature and stuff like that.

[Guest GhostRanger]

religion is just the result of people not having anything better to think about. religion has done some good things for the world, but the only thing i see come from religion is fighting, wars, arguements, and stupidity. Just take a look at all the major conflicts in the world today: political correctness, israel, terrorists. almost everything is over religion, which is just really stupid imo.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

People seriously have to start using logic when it comes down to religion. And ill do my best to explain my views here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Did a god create the earth? no. The old testament was written by a bunch of people during the babylonian captivity. LONG after any of the events in the old testament occured. The only purpose of the old testament was to give hope to the jews and to set moral standards. The Bible is just a bunch of stories, nothing else.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I would advise you against brandishing your secular Biblical knowledge in the way you did. For instance, you say they were written during the Babylonian captivity by people who weren't there - that is incorrect. The first 5 books of the Bible, the Torah Laws, were written by Moses. And if you didn't know..Moses was a key player in Exodus.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is widely accepted that Joshua wrote the book of Joshua (guess who that was about!) and almost all of the prophetic books of the Bible were written by the people whom they are named after (Daniel for isntance.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

David, who was also a key player in a good deal of the entire Bible, wrote Psalms.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think you better think before speaking on subjects you don't know much about.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

where did the matter in the universe come from?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=631

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

if you want to learn all about cosmology, browse that site. its very good.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Did a god create life? no. When the earth was first created it was not suitable for life. Eventually through chemical processes (which have been duplicated in a lab), RNA was made. Eventually DNA was made and the first organisms. Did natural selection and evolution played its role. If you want to know more, there are good books and websites out there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But the beginning of all matter and all existance of anything is theory. Scientists cannot explain the very beginning of time any better than theologians can. You just need to accept that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you are unsure of evolution, don't think its possible, ect, then i can tell you one thing. It's a hell of a lot more logical than some anti-physics being clapping his hands and pointing his finger (exagerrated, i know). And all the evidence points towards science, whereas ABSOLUTELY no evidence shows that a god had a role.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

besides, we see evolution on a small scale everyday. that is bacteria becoming resistant to lotions and everything.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It might be more logical, but then again, your example isn't. We see bacteria adapting to what was harming them...we do not see them evoloving to another being, another species. Its the primary difference between natural selection and evolution that most Darwinians overlook.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. possibility of a god? maybe, but it's very slim. The only way i see a god having an impact on the universe is probably the very beginning. cause that's where physics and everything breaks down. I can tell you, however, that there is no such thing as a heaven, hell, or soul. We are chemical beings when it comes down to it, and religion is just an attempt to explain what we don't understand.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, so you've died before? Seriously, you sound like an idiot telling us you can tell us for sure there is no Heaven or Hell. Just because you don't believe in it doesn't make it "for sure that it doesn't exist." You've never died, so you don't know what is afterwards. Who's to say that God didn't make us "chemical beings when it comes down to it," it doesn't mean there isn't something more.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The only religion that pretty much makes sense is buddaism (im not buddist) because it tries to create peace and happiness in THIS life, not when we are dead. everyone already knows that when your body shuts down, you're at peace. (although i think the zen and karma is a load of bs)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i on the other hand am religious, but not religious in the sense that i worship something that i know is not real. You can be religious with nature and stuff like that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually you're confusing Buddhism (I'm glad you know how to spell it) the religion, and Buddhism the philosophy. The religion does focus on obtaining a better afterlife, whereas the philosophy just focuses on being a better person for here and now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My point is not to prove you wrong about your beliefs- but to teach you tolerance. You don't know nearly as much as you think you do, yet you think you are capable of making these outlandish statements. You would do wise to follow the secular philosophers of your past and instead of refuting religion, actually learn about it and accept it as a lifestyle you don't choose to partake in. But to insult it, call it bs, and make ridiculous claims about how "you know this and that for sure" is insane. You should know better than that.

[Pete_the_Viscous]

(Just registering my agreement with GhostRanger).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...in order to bring something new to the discussion, however, I might add that I firmly believe that we don't die. At all. It seems to me that dying is just something that happens to other people; I'm not going to believe I'll die until it actually happens to me (if it actually happens).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By "we" don't die I mean that this could be applied by you to yourself, in that I could die, and you won't ever. Not that I actually think this, or anything.