Religious, Agnostic, Or Aethiest?

[Scoobydugan]

I'm agnostic......Religion just seems to fake for me...Think about it.....My opinion is that religion was something used to get people to be good back in the day. The punishment for breaking the rules(sinning) was going to hell...Now i think heaven and hell just represent your conscience. If you know you did something wrong and you think your going to hell then you will probably "repent" and not break anymore rules...the reward for being good is heaven...thinking you are a great person will make you want to stay that way, so heaven is just kinda to bribe you into being good....
Just my 2 cents

[MagicNakor]

Not all religions have a "heaven" or a "hell."

:ninja:

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Scoobydugan@7 March 2003 - 00:58
I'm agnostic......Religion just seems to fake for me...Think about it.....My opinion is that religion was something used to get people to be good back in the day. The punishment for breaking the rules(sinning) was going to hell...Now i think heaven and hell just represent your conscience. If you know you did something wrong and you think your going to hell then you will probably "repent" and not break anymore rules...the reward for being good is heaven...thinking you are a great person will make you want to stay that way, so heaven is just kinda to bribe you into being good....
Just my 2 cents
Are you agnostic or atheistic. Please chose a side your post is not clear to me.

[DataMore]

:unsure: I'm not sure about what I am. :unsure:

I believe in God but I do not believe in religion. :huh:
:huh: What am I? :huh:

[dwightfry]

I assume agnostic means a spiritualist. You believe in a god, but not neccesarily one defined by a religion.

If so, I am agnostic. I believe in life after death, but not nessesarily heaven or hell.

[Petri]

Originally posted by Merriam-Webster Online
agnostic: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
It has nothing to do with spiritualism...

And I'm an atheist, btw.

[DataMore]

If an agnostic is what dwightfry described, then count me in. ;)

[MagicNakor]

This (http://www.religioustolerance.org/agnostic.htm) site has a brief overview of agnosticism, if anyone was interested further.

[sleepnmojo]

I'm christian. thats my name :w00t:

and im also a christian. However, i disagree with many churchs, and have had my
share of bad churches. Thus i don't go anymore. However I believe what i read
in the bible, without a doubt. I can't say im the best christian, and i dont front.

I can't say im atheist because i believe there is a God, and can't say im agnostic,
because im certain.

PS: My girlfriend's name is faith. Figure that one out :w00t:

[Grim]

Originally posted by dwightfry@7 March 2003 - 01:59
I assume agnostic means a spiritualist. You believe in a god, but not neccesarily one defined by a religion.

If so, I am agnostic. I believe in life after death, but not nessesarily heaven or hell.
ag•nos•tic (ag nos‚tik) n.1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as a god or God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable. — adj.2. of or pertaining to agnostics or agnosticism. [1869; < Gk ágnŽst (os) , var. of ágnŽtos not known, incapable of being known ( a- A-6 + gnŽtós known, v. adj. of gign¤skein to KNOW) + -IC, after GNOSTIC]— ag•nos‚ti•cal•ly adv.

From Websters Elekronic Dixionary :lol:

Bye the way i dont give a shit aboot religion, reet

[SuperJude™]

Why must I be any of the 3? Cannot you have mixed concepts on things?

-SJ™

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by SuperJude™@7 March 2003 - 07:14
Why must I be any of the 3? Cannot you have mixed concepts on things?

-SJ™
No

It&#39;s not a religious thing.

You are either sure God exists, sure God doesn&#39;t exist, or don&#39;t know.

[SuperJude™]

But what if you think perhaps there is no unique anything so why would there be only one god? What if you think that humans are to stupid to understand God? What is you think maybe God is a hybrid entity and particle?

What then?

Just saying there may be concepts beyond simple belief systems, but if religion is the opiate of the masses then perhaps too is the disbelief of such or the being unsure of such.

-SJ™

[Hazzy Hazz]

so what do you call a person believing in god but is against it?

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Hazzy Hazz@7 March 2003 - 08:20
so what do you call a person believing in god but is against it?
Tom

[N£MO]

I guess im agnostic too....only been to church twice and one of them was when i was christened.. :blink: :unsure:

[puremindmatters]

Originally posted by JmiF+7 March 2003 - 08:16--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JmiF @ 7 March 2003 - 08:16)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--SuperJude™@7 March 2003 - 07:14
Why must I be any of the 3? Cannot you have mixed concepts on things?

-SJ™
No

It&#39;s not a religious thing.

You are either sure God exists, sure God doesn&#39;t exist, or don&#39;t know. [/b][/quote]
How can you be sure?

You can be sure that He exists, if you are Him and know that.
You cannot be sure that He does not exist, unless you can be sure that you know what He is and what He isn&#39;t. The only one knowing what He is and what He isn&#39;t for sure would be Him. So therefore the only one who could be sure that He doesn&#39;t exist would be Him. Of course He would have to exist to know that.

I could elaborate on that but I better don&#39;t start. :lol:

[alan36uk]

I am a non practicing Catholic.
I do believe there is something up
in the sky (not sure what though)
In my opinion all religion should be banned.
The world would be a much happier place :D

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by puremindmatters+7 March 2003 - 15:32--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (puremindmatters @ 7 March 2003 - 15:32)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -JmiF@7 March 2003 - 08:16
<!--QuoteBegin--SuperJude™@7 March 2003 - 07:14
Why must I be any of the 3? Cannot you have mixed concepts on things?

-SJ™
No

It&#39;s not a religious thing.

You are either sure God exists, sure God doesn&#39;t exist, or don&#39;t know.
How can you be sure?

You can be sure that He exists, if you are Him and know that.
You cannot be sure that He does not exist, unless you can be sure that you know what He is and what He isn&#39;t. The only one knowing what He is and what He isn&#39;t for sure would be Him. So therefore the only one who could be sure that He doesn&#39;t exist would be Him. Of course He would have to exist to know that.

I could elaborate on that but I better don&#39;t start. :lol: [/b][/quote]
So that would be don&#39;t know. i.e. not in the survey sense, in the true sense.

e.g. what it the speed of light in furlongs per fortnight. Answer I don&#39;t know.

[Knuckles187]

i dont belive in anything.

[dave]

I&#39;m Catholic. I believe the Bible and go to church...
Here&#39;s a thought for you atheists... The universe is only a few billion years old. Before that time the universe simply didn&#39;t exist... Something or someone had to put it here.

[Petri]

Originally posted by dave@7 March 2003 - 18:46
The universe is only a few billion years old. Before that time the universe simply didn&#39;t exist... Something or someone had to put it here.
And what/who put that something/someone there?

In other words - who created god?

[insanebassman]

My theory:

There is a god
it can not be proven because god is based on faith
should proof, concrete proof, be made available, there would be no god

who is god?

who knows..... I just know it is out there waiting for another talking monkey to get board with life.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by dave@7 March 2003 - 17:46
I&#39;m Catholic. I believe the Bible and go to church...
Here&#39;s a thought for you atheists... The universe is only a few billion years old. Before that time the universe simply didn&#39;t exist... Something or someone had to put it here.
Actually that&#39;s not true. There is at least one reasonable explanation of what was there before the big bang. You are also treating time and space as being different, when they are not. You have to look at the universe in a spacetime sort of way. In addition you are looking at the universe in a Newtonian Cause then Effect way. That is only really true for a limited scale of thing. The very big and the very small, the very fast and the very slow act differently. At a quantum level all we can really look at is degrees of probability. We can never really know anything, it is actually quite mystical. We change a system merely by observing it. Who then is to say that we have not created the universe ourselves, by trying to observe how the universe was created. Remember cause and effect do not need to come in that order.

I love the idea of only a few Billion years old. I believe the minimum age is estimated to be 11 billion years. However that doesn&#39;t really matter. Unless you are certain that time is linear.

Think of it this way

- needs a start and an end

0 does not

My belief system may be very similar to your, it may not. However it will be based on education, research and above all faith.

[Leech_Killer]

I&#39;m a Jedi Knight.

In the 2001 census in the UK enough people entered Jedi Knight for religion. So it&#39;s been added to the list of religions.

If you don&#39;t believe me go here:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1589133.stm

:D

[puremindmatters]

So that would be don&#39;t know. i.e. not in the survey sense, in the true sense.

e.g. what it the speed of light in furlongs per fortnight. Answer I don&#39;t know. [/QUOTE]
You know that for sure?

In the true sense you are actually right - the more I know the more I know that I don&#39;t know.

In the survey sense - I would have missed my profession if I didn&#39;t believe in what I believe. In other words: Don&#39;t introduce rational concepts into a discussion where rational conceptualisation is inadmissable to start with. It&#39;s not quite that easy, you know...

edit: reading your last post, you do... apologies

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by puremindmatters@7 March 2003 - 18:19

edit: reading your last post, you do... apologies
Ha Ha put that in your smoke and pipe it. Brain boy.

["The Avatar Man"]

I am agnostic,but respectful of everyone&#39;s beliefs :)

[Leech_Killer]

Originally posted by Master YodaX@7 March 2003 - 18:33
I am agnostic,but respectful of everyone&#39;s beliefs :)
I would have thought you&#39;d have been a Jedi Knight, See above.

[puremindmatters]

Originally posted by JmiF+7 March 2003 - 18:32--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JmiF @ 7 March 2003 - 18:32)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--puremindmatters@7 March 2003 - 18:19

edit:&nbsp; reading your last post, you do... apologies
Ha Ha put that in your smoke and pipe it. Brain boy. [/b][/quote]
Sadly, my boyhood days are long gone.... so are the days where I was putting anything in my smoke.
If I&#39; d managed somehow to take you serious we&#39;d probably had a good laugh... maybe not.

[DataMore]

:D Alright guys, this article seems interesting.

"The Big Bang was NOT a Fireworks Display&#33;

Preexisting Space?

There wasn&#39;t any&#33;

The mathematics of General Relativity (GR) state specifically and unambiguously that 3-dimensional space was created at the Big Bang itself, at &#39;Time Zero&#39;, along with everything else. It was a &#39;singular&#39; event in which the separations between all particles everywhere, vanished. This is just another way of saying that our familiar 3-dimensional space vanished. Theorists studying various prototypes for the Theory of Everything have only modified this statement somewhat. During its earliest moments, the universe may have existed in a nearly incomprehensible state which may have had more than 4 dimensions, or perhaps none at all. Many of these theories of the earliest moments hypothesize a &#39;mother space-time&#39; that began our own universe, but you cannot at the same time place your minds eye both inside this Mother Spacetime to watch the Big Bang happen, and inside our universe to see the matter flying around. This is exactly what the fireworks display model demands that you do.

Preexisting Time?

There wasn&#39;t any of this either&#33;

Again, GR&#39;s mathematics treats both space and time together as one object called &#39;space-time&#39; which is indivisible. At Time Zero plus a moment, you had a well defined quantity called time. At Time Zero minus a moment, this same quantity changed its character in the mathematics and became &#39;imaginary&#39;. This is a mathematical warning flag that something dreadfully unexpected has happened to time as we know it. In a famous quote by Einstein, "...time and space are modes by which we think and not conditions in which we live". Steven Hawking has looked at the mathematics of this state using the fledgling physics of Quantum Gravity Theory, and confirms that at the Big Bang, time was murdered in the most thorough way imaginable. It may have been converted into just another &#39;timeless&#39; dimension of space...or so the mathematics seems to suggest.

Individual objects moving out from a common center?

Nope&#33;

GR says specifically that space is not a passive stage upon which matter plays out its dance, but is a member of the cast. When you treat both galaxies and space-time together, you get a very different answer for what happens than if you treat them separately, which is what we instinctively always do. Curved space distorts the paths of particles, sometimes in very dramatic ways. If you stepped into a space ship and tried to travel to the edge of the universe and look beyond, it would be impossible. Not only could you not reach a supposed "edge" of the universe no matter how long or how fast you traveled, in a closed universe, you would eventually find yourself arriving where you departed. The curvature of space would bring you right back, in something like the way the curvature of Earth would bring you home if you flew west and never changed course. In other words, the universe has no edge in space. There is nothing beyond the farthest star.

As a mental anchor, many have used the expanding balloon as an analogy to the expanding universe. As seen from any one spot on the balloon&#39;s surface, all other spots rush away from it as the balloon is inflated. There is no one center to the expansion ON THE SURFACE of the balloon that is singled out as the center of the Big Bang. This is very different than the fireworks display which does have a dramatic, common center to the expanding cloud of cinders. The balloon analogy, however, is not perfect, because as we watch the balloon, our vantage point is still within a preexisting larger arena which GR says never existed for the real universe.

The center of the Big Bang was not a point in space, but a point in time&#33; It is a center, not in the fabric of the balloon, but outside it along the 4th dimension...time. We cannot see this point anywhere we look inside the space of our universe out towards the distant galaxies. You can&#39;t see time afterall&#33; We can only see it as we look back in time at the ancient images we get from the most distant objects we can observe. We see a greatly changed, early history of the universe in these images but no unique center to them in space.

It is at this point that common sense must give up its seat on the bus, and yield to the insights provided by GR. And it is at precisely this point that so many non-physicists refuse to be so courteous. And who can blame them? But there&#39;s more to come.

Projectiles moving through space?

Sorry&#33;

GR again has something very troubling to say about this. For millions of years we have learned from experience on the savanas of the African continent and elsewhere, that we can move through space. As we drive down the highway, we have absolutely no doubts what is happening as we traverse the distance between landmarks along the roadside. This knowledge is so primal that we are incapable of mustering much doubt about it. But science is not about confirming our prejudices. It&#39;s about revealing how things actually are.

What if I told you that you could decrease the distance from your house and the Washington Monument by &#39;standing still&#39; and just letting space contract the distance away? GR predicts exactly this new phenomenon, and the universe seems to be the only arena we know today in which it naturally occurs. Like spots glued to the surface of the balloon at eternally fixed latitude and longitude points, the galaxies remain where they are while space dilates between them with the passage of time. There is no reason at all we should find this kind of motion intuitive.

If space is stretching like this, where do the brand new millions of cubic light years come from, from one moment to the next? The answer in GR is that they have always been there. To see how this could happen, I like to think of the shape of our universe as a "Cosmic Watermellon". The fact that this is only the shape for a &#39;closed&#39; finite universe is only a technicality. Finite watermellons are also cheaper to buy than infinite ones.

GR predicts the entire past, present and future of the universe all at once, and predicts its entire 4-dimensional shape. As we slice the 4-dimensional, Cosmic Watermellon at one end of the cosmic time line, we see 3-dimensional space and its contents soon after the Big Bang. At the other end of the Cosmic Watermellon in the far future, we see the collapse of space and matter just before the Big Crunch. But in between, our slices show the shape of space (closed, spherical volumes) and the locations of galaxies ( at fixed locations) as space dilates from one extreme to the other.

As a particular slice through an ordinary watermellon, we see that its meat has always been present in the complete watermellon. The meat is present as a continuous medium, and we never ask where the meat in a particular slice came from. Cosmologically, GR ask us to please think of 3-dimensional space in the same way. Space, like the meat of the watermellon, has always existed in the complete shape of the universe in 4-dimensions. But it is only in 4-dimensions that the full shape of the universe is revealed. It is a mystery why our consciousness insists on experiencing the universe one moment at a time, and that is why we end up with the paradox of where space comes from. There really is no paradox at all.

Space is not &#39;nothing&#39; according to Einstein, it is merely another name for the gravitational field of the universe. Einstein once said, "Space-time does not claim existence on its own but only as a structural quality of the [gravitational] field". If you could experimentally turn-off gravity with a switch, space-time would vanish. This is the ultimate demolition experiment known to physics for which an environmental impact statement would most certainly have to be filed.

The gravitational field at one instant is wedded to itself in the next instant by the incessant quantum churnings of the myriad of individual particles that like bees in a swarm, make up the gravitational field itself. In this frothing tumult, the gravitational field is knit together, quantum by quantum, from perhaps even more elemental building blocks, and it is perhaps here that we will find the ultimate origin for the expansion of the universe and the magical stretching of space. We hope the much anticipated Theory of Everything will have more to say about this, but to actually test this theory may require technologies and human resources that we can only dimly dream of.

Was there a definite moment to the Big Bang?

GR is perfectly happy to forecast that our universe emerged from an infinite density, zero-space &#39;Singularity&#39; at Time Zero, but physicists now feel very strongly that this instant was smeared out by any number of quantum mechanical effects, so that we can never speak of a time before about 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang. Just as Gertrude Stein once remarked about my hometown, Oakland, California that "There is no &#39;There&#39; there", at 10^-43 seconds, nature may tell us that before the Big Bang, "There was no &#39;When&#39; there" either. The moment dissolves away into some weird quantum fog, and as Steven Hawking speculates, time may actually become bent into a new dimension of space and no longer even definable in this state. Ordinary GR is unable to describe this condition and only some future theory combing GR and quantum mechanics will be able to tell us more. We hope.

Something started the Big Bang&#33;

At last we come to the most difficult issue in modern cosmology. In the fireworks display, we can trace the events leading up to the explosion all the way back to the chemists that created the gunpowder and wrapped the explosives. GR, however, can tell us nothing about the equivalent stages leading up to the Big Bang, and in fact, among its strongest statements is the one that says that time itself may not have existed. How, then, do we speak or think about a condition, or process, that started the whole shebang if we are not even allowed to frame the event as "This happened first...then this...then kerpowie&#33;"? This remains the essential mystery of the Big Bang which seems to doggedly transcend every mathematical description we can create to describe it.

All of the logical frameworks we know about are based on chains of events or states. All of our experiences of such chains in the physical world have been ordered in time. Even when the mathematics and the theory tell us &#39;What happened before the Big Bang to start it?&#39; is not a logical or legitimate question, we insist on viewing this as a proper question to ask of nature, and we expect a firm answer. But like so many other things we have learned this century about the physical world, our gut instincts about which questions ought to have definite answers is often flawed when we explore the extreme limits to our physical world.

I wrote this essay before seeing the new IMAX file at the Air and Space Museum &#39;Cosmic Journey", by far one of the nicest and most heroic movies of its kind I had ever seen. But of course it showed the Big Bang as a fireworks display. No matter. It doesn&#39;t take a rocket scientist to accept the fact that the Big Bang was a spectacular moment in history. What is amazing is that the daring audacity of humans may have demystified some of it, and revealed a universe far stranger than any could have imagined.

Still, we are haunted by our hunches and intuitions gathered over millenia, and under circumstances far removed from the greater physical world we are now exploring. No wonder it all seems so alien and maddeningly complex."

["The Avatar Man"]

Originally posted by Leech_Killer+7 March 2003 - 18:43--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Leech_Killer @ 7 March 2003 - 18:43)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Master YodaX@7 March 2003 - 18:33
I am agnostic,but respectful of everyone&#39;s beliefs :)
I would have thought you&#39;d have been a Jedi Knight, See above. [/b][/quote]
"Leader Of The Jedi Knights" :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

[Skweeky]

thought some of us might like this, it&#39;s a discourse from scientific philosophie, propostion logics

p=God is the most perfect creature
q=God exists
r=There is a creature more perfect than God

this is what u presume: p, if not q then r, if r then not p

--&#62;
p
if not q then r
if r then not p
not q
if not q then r
r
if r then not p
not p
if not q then not p
q


it&#39;s all correct according to the rules :lol:



as for me: I don&#39;t know.....say I&#39;m agnostic for now

[Leech_Killer]

Originally posted by Master YodaX+7 March 2003 - 18:51--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Master YodaX @ 7 March 2003 - 18:51)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -Leech_Killer@7 March 2003 - 18:43
<!--QuoteBegin--Master YodaX@7 March 2003 - 18:33
I am agnostic,but respectful of everyone&#39;s beliefs :)
I would have thought you&#39;d have been a Jedi Knight, See above.
"Leader Of The Jedi Knights" :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D [/b][/quote]
Sorry Master

:D :D :D

[Longdong]

@Datamore - so where did you copy and paste that from? Very interesting though. I&#39;m in the middle of reading stephen hawkings - A brief history of time which explains things quite clearly.

[insanebassman]

DataMore:

I love that essay&#33;&#33;

I have read Steven Hawking&#39;s books as well as the book of Nothing and some others...

love it

[abraham1812]

There is no God, there is only the silly notion that 1 supreme being exist. Depending where you, "God" may mean several things, Allah, Budda, or the many sects of religions based on native american beliefs/ Bolivian beliefs.
At some point in time, im sure u ate steak before, so according to the religions in India, your going to "hell" for eating cow meat.

[puremindmatters]

Originally posted by abraham1812@7 March 2003 - 19:13
There is no God, there is only the silly notion that 1 supreme being exist. Depending where you, "God" may mean several things, Allah, Budda, or the many sects of religions based on native american beliefs/ Bolivian beliefs.
At some point in time, im sure u ate steak before, so according to the religions in India, your going to "hell" for eating cow meat.
There are many religions in India, but none of them has the concept of hell.
Eating cow meat is considered to be a sin by some though.

[Skweeky]

Originally posted by puremindmatters+7 March 2003 - 19:26--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (puremindmatters @ 7 March 2003 - 19:26)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--abraham1812@7 March 2003 - 19:13
There is no God, there is only the silly notion that 1 supreme being exist. Depending where you, "God" may mean several things, Allah, Budda, or the many sects of religions based on native american beliefs/ Bolivian beliefs.
At some point in time, im sure u ate steak before, so according to the religions in India, your going to "hell" for eating cow meat.
There are many religions in India, but none of them has the concept of hell.
Eating cow meat is considered to be a sin by some though. [/b][/quote]
Buddhism knows hell.
You go to hell when u committed a crime u can never make up for e.g. murder. Only men can go to hell though, women are believed to be to weak for that

[DataMore]

Originally posted by Skweeky@7 March 2003 - 18:28
Only men can go to hell though, women are believed to be to weak for that
:D Or maybe Satan just can&#39;t stand women&#33; :D

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by DataMore+7 March 2003 - 19:32--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (DataMore @ 7 March 2003 - 19:32)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Skweeky@7 March 2003 - 18:28
Only men can go to hell though, women are believed to be to weak for that
:D Or maybe Satan just can&#39;t stand women&#33; :D [/b][/quote]
I&#39;m sure she can&#39;t

[puremindmatters]

... so much for my memory - you are right Skweeky, did some quick reading...
In Tibetan Buddhism they apparently have 32 hells.