|
What is your religion?
|
| baseballlover312 |
Posted on 18-01-2013 03:31
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 16429
Joined: 27-07-2011
PCM$: 10438.70
|
It just occurred to me that this is a cycling game forum. 
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy |
| |
|
|
| cio93 |
Posted on 18-01-2013 03:35
|
World Champion
Posts: 10845
Joined: 29-10-2007
PCM$: 500.00
|
Isn't its versatility impressive?
|
| |
|
|
| Avin Wargunnson |
Posted on 18-01-2013 06:21
|
World Champion
Posts: 14236
Joined: 20-06-2011
PCM$: 300.00
|
Two days off the site and we have a religious council going on when i returned to see some cycling news? 
I am an atheist, at least that is the best option for me from the given list. I rather believe in what Nietzsche said in my sort of a way. The God is imo not really needed anymore to control the masses (yes, that was the original purpose of christianity as the state religion of Rome and that was the case the whole medieval times). Now we have media to control them, so who needs God?
Although there are still tons of "stupid" and not well informed people, there is maybe a majority of them now, who knows why it is raining and why the thunders are so loud, it is no more God saying we did something wrong. So the former purpose (older than the state religion thingy) of God being someone who watch and judge us and then bring natural disasters on us, is also broken. So yes, the God is dead, as science and spread of education killed him.
I rather believe on individuall will, every human has it and it depends on him and his surroundings what will become of it. And these thoughts goes strictly against ideas of someone or something bigger overlooking us from the sky or where it should live. Actually we people looked for it in the space and in the ground and it was not there apparently, so where it is, in the hearts? Yes there it is and there it maybe can live forever, but i would rather call it Love than God.
Sorry if i offended someone with my view, i respect all the religions and people, everybody can believe what he wants. On the other hand, maybe it would be better for some to stop believe in nonsense and start creating his own fate, but that is choice of an individual (if he still has something like individual thinking).
|
| |
|
|
| CountArach |
Posted on 18-01-2013 06:24
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 8290
Joined: 14-07-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Atheist bordering on anti-theist at times.
Edited by CountArach on 18-01-2013 06:24
|
| |
|
|
| Ian Butler |
Posted on 18-01-2013 07:41
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 21854
Joined: 01-05-2012
PCM$: 400.00
|
Holy Jesus! (pun intended) This thread moved up 6 pages in one night  |
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 22-11-2024 00:32
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| CountArach |
Posted on 18-01-2013 07:58
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 8290
Joined: 14-07-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
baseballlover312 wrote:
Explain it to me then. This happened in the past, so they need a time machine first...
As an historian I take exception to that.
|
| |
|
|
| jack888 |
Posted on 18-01-2013 08:02
|
Protected Rider
Posts: 1280
Joined: 09-06-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
(reading the last page...)Saying something is "just a scientific theory" doesn't do a lot of ideas justice. Do you use a GPS? Because without Einstein's special relativity equations it wouldn't work.
According to his "theory", a clock in a satellite revolving around the earth at that speed would tick slightly slower than an atomic clock on the earth. His equations predicted that the difference would be a few millionths of a second.
Without his calculations our GPS would go out of wack within 2 or 3 minutes. Imagine having a "theory" that can explain the nature of time right down until billionths of a second? Saying it's "just a theory" as if it is just an opinion will never do it justice.
The reason we don't say theories have been "proven" is because Einstein could well be wrong. I mean, we thought Newton was on the money with his equations but like I said before, his equations can't even begin to address the problem of time dilation in GPS satellites. It doesn't exactly mean he was wrong, I mean, his equations address 99% of everyday problems we encounter, it just means someone expanded on his knowledge.
The same goes for the big bang theory. It has an extremely solid case going for it and if it ever is "proved wrong", it will only be on some minor detail and succeeded by an idea that encompasses all it's basic ideas.
There is an important essay on this point that sums it up better than I can: https://chem.tufts...fwrong.htm
I still don't get why religious people would be worried about the big bang theory being shown possible by experiments. It has no impact on any religion I am aware of. There is a good chance that big bangs happen all the time and it really isn't something that special. Surely it would add to the greatness of a God if you thought he created infinite worlds? Rather than just a little one that will be uninhabitable in a time scale we are aware of.
|
| |
|
|
| issoisso |
Posted on 18-01-2013 09:30
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 22918
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
CountArach wrote:
baseballlover312 wrote:
Explain it to me then. This happened in the past, so they need a time machine first...
As an historian I take exception to that.
We don't need a time machine, we have already detected the background radiation that remains from the big bang. It's there, just as the theory predicts it would be.
jack888 wrote:
I still don't get why religious people would be worried about the big bang theory being shown possible by experiments. It has no impact on any religion I am aware of. There is a good chance that big bangs happen all the time and it really isn't something that special. Surely it would add to the greatness of a God if you thought he created infinite worlds? Rather than just a little one that will be uninhabitable in a time scale we are aware of.
As Neil deGrasse Tyson said, the irony is that while most religious people claim they believe mostly because science doesn't adequately explain the wonders of the human experience......when you're a top level scientist you're studying on a daily basis phenomena that is so astounding, so beautiful, that religion seems quaint and boring in comparison and as a result religion ceases to hold much fascination.
That's mostly why it's incredibly rare to find a top level scientist (such as a nobel prize winner) with religious beliefs. Well, that and because such people are usually guided by logic and the search for evidence while religion is based on faith, aka accepting things because "you know in your heart".
Here's the problem with this though: the religious people who try to disprove every scientific theory that goes against what their holy book of choice says? (evolution, the big bang, etc.) are purposefully limiting their deities.
They are essentially saying "no, my god did not do those amazingly beautiful and complex things. It was much simpler and more boring." Which is a very odd thing when you consider the original lure of religion to the common man is that it gives the hope that there's something more complex out there than what we see.
Personally I think there is. I use science to try to find it. But again, whatever makes each person happy. Isn't that why we search knowledge and understanding? To seek happiness?
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
|
| |
|
|
| admirschleck |
Posted on 18-01-2013 09:44
|
Team Leader
Posts: 6690
Joined: 11-10-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
I am muslim 
|
| |
|
|
| acac |
Posted on 18-01-2013 10:23
|
Domestique
Posts: 654
Joined: 20-09-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
i voted Atheism.
my idea about all religions is that it was all one big Hallucination.
take the story of moses for example: we are talking about atleast 5000 years ago, during that time the importance of water(and sleep) was not known, so Hallucinations could be seen as miracles and superpowers.
moses saw a plant suddenly burn->egypt in the summer is very hot and dry, this can cause plants to get burned out of no where.
and my idea of why people are still connected to religion: its their way of dealing with their problems in life. every time they say: may god help us/its all a part of his plan/god will give us this and that , its a way of telling yourself that if something bad happend to you there will always be someone helping you get up on your feet. dont get me wrong, this is a legit way of life, but i am just not a fan of it(mostly becuse of the ugly things people will do in the name of religion).
Edited by acac on 18-01-2013 10:23
|
| |
|
|
| Aquarius |
Posted on 18-01-2013 13:22
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5220
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
baseballlover312 wrote:
Aquarius wrote:
baseballlover312 wrote:
Okay, Adam and Eve is just a metaphor for tempation and sin.
I know. But the story has a deeper meaning and enlightens how religions work.
You get punished when you question what religions tell you. Doubting is already a sin. They had to remain ignorants to be happy and alive.
I hate that logic, and I'd eat the apple any day.
Why? Why would you eat that apple when there were so many others? Why? What reason? What good could it do you at all? You have to be trolling.
That apple not only fed them (any apple would have done), but offered them knowledge, and suddenly they realized what was going on around them, how stupid the way they used to live was, so they suddenly wanted more and changed how they lived (started getting dressed, etc.).
As I wrote yesterday (it was yesterday in this part of the world ), I see it as religion forbidding people to question its rules, and as something preventing evolution.
Had they not sinned (and no one since them), we'd all be incredibly happy and living like, say, 6 000 years ago (random number, but creationists say that's about the age of the world).
There's something that sounds like that nowadays, some people who apply that logic. Islam extremists who're murdering people and would like to reinstate an Islam caliphate where people would live like in their prophet's time (seventh century).
If my choice is to be conscious and see the bad aspects of life, or to be ignorant and happy, my choice will be the first one. Bite the apple.
Please note that I don't mean we should sin as much as possible or anything like that. We should have morality, but that doesn't imply religion. |
| |
|
|
| Neillster |
Posted on 18-01-2013 13:33
|
Domestique
Posts: 713
Joined: 13-10-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
Aquarius wrote:
baseballlover312 wrote:
Aquarius wrote:
baseballlover312 wrote:
Okay, Adam and Eve is just a metaphor for tempation and sin.
I know. But the story has a deeper meaning and enlightens how religions work.
You get punished when you question what religions tell you. Doubting is already a sin. They had to remain ignorants to be happy and alive.
I hate that logic, and I'd eat the apple any day.
Why? Why would you eat that apple when there were so many others? Why? What reason? What good could it do you at all? You have to be trolling.
That apple not only fed them (any apple would have done), but offered them knowledge, and suddenly they realized what was going on around them, how stupid the way they used to live was, so they suddenly wanted more and changed how they lived (started getting dressed, etc.).
As I wrote yesterday (it was yesterday in this part of the world ), I see it as religion forbidding people to question its rules, and as something preventing evolution.
Had they not sinned (and no one since them), we'd all be incredibly happy and living like, say, 6 000 years ago (random number, but creationists say that's about the age of the world).
There's something that sounds like that nowadays, some people who apply that logic. Islam extremists who're murdering people and would like to reinstate an Islam caliphate where people would live like in their prophet's time (seventh century).
If my choice is to be conscious and see the bad aspects of life, or to be ignorant and happy, my choice will be the first one. Bite the apple.
Please note that I don't mean we should sin as much as possible or anything like that. We should have morality, but that doesn't imply religion.
Then upon what should our morality be based? Sure without a set standard, everything is relative. |
| |
|
|
| Aquarius |
Posted on 18-01-2013 13:52
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5220
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
What are we ? Human beings. What other "beings" have the greatest influence on us in our every day lives ? You might think God but I'd answer you : human beings.
Concern for other human beings is what morality should be based upon, IMO.
There might b a God, but that's only a theory. There are other living people, and living species around us. Those are not a theory. They should be our primary concern.
My stance is more or less Nietzsche's or Camus'. We should act as saints even if there's no God, nothing after life, etc. There might be a God but we don't need it to live our lives and be good persons. |
| |
|
|
| kumazan |
Posted on 18-01-2013 13:55
|
Team Leader
Posts: 6662
Joined: 02-07-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
Neillster wrote:
Then upon what should our morality be based? Sure without a set standard, everything is relative.
But morals are relative. I mean, in this very thread, you and other user have justified genocide. If that's not an example of morals being relative I don't know what it is.
|
| |
|
|
| tonymcf |
Posted on 18-01-2013 14:10
|
Stagiare
Posts: 215
Joined: 30-11-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
A non=denominational Christian. I was a practising Catholic until just before the New Year. I left because I could no longer identify with it, it became clear to me over time that it was not what I once believed in. I was an altar boy for 4 and a half years and actually wanted to be a priest as a young teen.
I started to develop severe disagreements over time, it's attitude to divorcees, it's attitude to homosexual people, it's attitude on a woman's right to choose and stemming from that, I realised the Catholic Church has a very low opinion of women.
I have faith in Jesus, I think he most likely existed but whether he was the son of God / a God, is very much open to debate. I see him as a revolutionary, a man who took on the dictatorship of what was accepted in those days. He preached a message of compassion, of tolerance, of respect and of love.
To me, Darwin's theory of evolution is the strongest explanation of why we're here. I prefer to be guided by my conscience now, I consider it to be stronger than church teaching and it gives me what would be described as morality. |
| |
|
|
| ShortsNL |
Posted on 18-01-2013 14:19
|
Breakaway Specialist
Posts: 898
Joined: 17-11-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
@ Crommy, the problem with scientific theory or 'fact' in that matter is that most if not all of it is based on human observation. I simply reject the suggestion that empiricism can lead to the deduction of absolute truth or certainty. I don't see scientific theory as a way of establishing absolute fact because I don't see the ability for humans to sense and measure things as perfect.
Scientific theory is good at providing a likely scenario or likely explanation, but nothing more. |
| |
|
|
| Ian Butler |
Posted on 18-01-2013 14:46
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 21854
Joined: 01-05-2012
PCM$: 400.00
|
ShortsNL wrote:
@ Crommy, the problem with scientific theory or 'fact' in that matter is that most if not all of it is based on human observation. I simply reject the suggestion that empiricism can lead to the deduction of absolute truth or certainty. I don't see scientific theory as a way of establishing absolute fact because I don't see the ability for humans to sense and measure things as perfect.
Scientific theory is good at providing a likely scenario or likely explanation, but nothing more.
Although science is the best we have, I agree with you there. Everything is still man's perspective. We can't think outside our own box, so to speak. Everything "scientific" is just in relation with something else.
For very interesting lecture about that, you might want to read Kant, Nietzsche, those guys  |
| |
|
|
| Crommy |
Posted on 18-01-2013 14:59
|
World Champion
Posts: 10018
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
ShortsNL wrote:
@ Crommy, the problem with scientific theory or 'fact' in that matter is that most if not all of it is based on human observation. I simply reject the suggestion that empiricism can lead to the deduction of absolute truth or certainty. I don't see scientific theory as a way of establishing absolute fact because I don't see the ability for humans to sense and measure things as perfect.
Scientific theory is good at providing a likely scenario or likely explanation, but nothing more.
No. It is based on demonstrable, repeatable experiments. It is not based on human observation. That is why we can have reasonable certainty in scientific theory.
|
| |
|
|
| dienblad |
Posted on 18-01-2013 14:59
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3772
Joined: 10-09-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
issoisso wrote:
CountArach wrote:
baseballlover312 wrote:
Explain it to me then. This happened in the past, so they need a time machine first...
As an historian I take exception to that.
We don't need a time machine, we have already detected the background radiation that remains from the big bang. It's there, just as the theory predicts it would be.
jack888 wrote:
I still don't get why religious people would be worried about the big bang theory being shown possible by experiments. It has no impact on any religion I am aware of. There is a good chance that big bangs happen all the time and it really isn't something that special. Surely it would add to the greatness of a God if you thought he created infinite worlds? Rather than just a little one that will be uninhabitable in a time scale we are aware of.
As Neil deGrasse Tyson said, the irony is that while most religious people claim they believe mostly because science doesn't adequately explain the wonders of the human experience......when you're a top level scientist you're studying on a daily basis phenomena that is so astounding, so beautiful, that religion seems quaint and boring in comparison and as a result religion ceases to hold much fascination.
That's mostly why it's incredibly rare to find a top level scientist (such as a nobel prize winner) with religious beliefs. Well, that and because such people are usually guided by logic and the search for evidence while religion is based on faith, aka accepting things because "you know in your heart".
Here's the problem with this though: the religious people who try to disprove every scientific theory that goes against what their holy book of choice says? (evolution, the big bang, etc.) are purposefully limiting their deities.
They are essentially saying "no, my god did not do those amazingly beautiful and complex things. It was much simpler and more boring." Which is a very odd thing when you consider the original lure of religion to the common man is that it gives the hope that there's something more complex out there than what we see.
Personally I think there is. I use science to try to find it. But again, whatever makes each person happy. Isn't that why we search knowledge and understanding? To seek happiness?
Like I said before, I believe in God and I believe that the big bang theory is true (also the tv-show is true and hilarious). So I believe that God created the earth with the Big Bang. I can't find this in the bible, but it is what I believe.
And yes, also evolution is true, but "managed" by both God and nature itself. I think He created the earth and nature in such a way, that it was possible to develop itself.
So shoot me for this if you want, but it is what I believe (and a nice explanation for those that can't choose between the 2  ).
|
| |
|
|
| Aquarius |
Posted on 18-01-2013 16:16
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5220
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
That you'd like to believe God created the Big Bang, why not, but the Earth ?!
It's pretty much known how galaxies, solar systems and planets have been created since then. Atoms and molecules bunched and so on, until their mass got big enough, etc.
At best how life appeared on Earth remains unexplained, but certainly not how the Earth got there since the Big Bang. |
| |
|
