Are you a "good" Christian, a not practicing Christian, or an Atheist? (1 Viewer)

[Fishy]

When I was small dad told me one time that when its raining it means that god is pissing on us.

Friends told me that he was cumming on us. Jeez

Oh and to be in topic: I agree with awpsoleet, god doesn't exist. imo

 

[MrBenedevil]

When I was small dad told me one time that when its raining it means that god is pissing on us.

Holy shit, thats what I always thought as a little kid Ö_Ö

 

[Puddin]

Unless you have any proof that your so-called God exists, please refrain from calling my post 'old'.

 

[Matth]

I'm a student with a very high scientific education, and I should be the first not to believe in God.
Instead, the truth (in my opinion) is this (which I've matured in the course of my school formation):
There is something called a God.
He's not alive, he's not with us, we can't pray for him,
This God in which I believe is the almost simple: First Unmoved Mover , as Aristotle thought it.

The Big Bang Theory has some limits, how did the Big Beng happen?
It happened, okay. But who was the First Mover, the thing who brought to it?

The only God I believe in has no connection or relationship with humans or animals, and so he's not connected with both human history and human progress.
The only God I believe in isn't recognised by any religion, but at all all the monotheistic religions derive from Aristotle's conception of a God.
The only God I believe in is something that doesn't require our prayers, our attentions, it's quite useless we continue thinking on it, since it can't do anything for us and with us and to us.
The only God I believe in is not dead, is not alive, is just the First and Unmoved Mover, nothing more and nothing less.
The only God I believe in not a person, is not an animated Who, but only an abstract What, which is at the origin of the Universe's existence.

All the religions are only adaptation and edit of this general theory. Then, man is responsible for having created something of which he's a Slave. But, Religion should be lived in a passive way, since
"Man is the only architect of his destiny" - Motto of the Renaissance.

 

[Solid]

So you're worshipping the first matter that the big bang produced as a god? lmao

The Big Bang Theory has some limits, how did the Big Beng happen?
It happened, okay. But who was the First Mover, the thing who brought to it?

There are actually theories where the universe is finite to the past, but doesn't have an earliest moment or event. This would kind of make the question of "what was before the big bang"(which is a wrongly worded question anyways as it created time itself but that's another debate) obsolete. As a student with a "very high scientific education" you should know this :^)

 

[Noodl]

Unless you have any proof that your so-called God exists, please refrain from calling my post 'old'.

It's old because it's the same old close-mindedness that we've all heard before. I could return the typical "prove he doesn't" blabla, but what's the point. You don't need proof to believe in something, nor do you need proof to believe something is 'old' given they're both subjective. One could say his proof is the Bible, that may not be adequate for you.

It's an opinion, I labelled it old because you've already expressed the same thing, and it's one of those comments that's just begging someone to reply to it. Each to their own, we're all allowed our opinions and beliefs. As long as you don't deny the belief of someone else, why bother trying to incite them.

 

[Matth]

There are actually theories where the universe is finite to the past, but doesn't have an earliest moment or event. This would kind of make the question of "what was before the big bang"(which is a wrongly worded question anyways as it created time itself but that's another debate) obsolete. As a student with a "very high scientific education" you should know this :^)

Indeed, I didn't speak of this theory... even mentioned. There are lots of theories (I remember 5-6) and yours is one of them.
But I agree less on the one you said, simply.

So, Universe which was created from the none thanks to the Big Bang, which was given thanks to the First Unmoved Mover.

If we'd speak of the theory of the past Universes, we will end always with the question: How was everything originated?
But as I said, we don't have to take care, to pay so much attention to this. That would be just useless.

 

[Solid]

So, Universe which was created from the none thanks to the Big Bang, which was given thanks to the First Unmoved Mover.

If we'd speak of the theory of the past Universes, we will end always with the question: How was everything originated?
But as I said, we don't have to take care, to pay so much attention to this. That would be just useless.

Yes, yes we do have to pay attention to this. What you're doing right now is the exact mistake Newton did a couple of hundred years ago(learn from the past blabla). You know that we can't exactly explain how everything came into existence yet, so you put a decoy there. In your case it's your so called "First Unmoved Mover". Good ol' Isaac did the same when he calculated the orbits of planets. They were unstable so he put god in there, who adjusts them so the planets wont actually crash into the sun. This way of thinking is harmful to science and actually reduces the speed scientific progress can be made.

 

[Matth]

This way of thinking is harmful to science and actually reduces the speed scientific progress can be made.

Not really. I already said it: this First Unmoved Mover is something (unmoved, immaterial, it's impossible to describe it) which gave origin to the Big Bang, to the creation of the Universe, of what Existed at very first in the Universe.
But, then, nothing more! It is not influent on the Universe's history (it has Never been influent), movements, planets, gravity, and so on. It was only the first mover of everything. Indeed, everything was built up then according to evolution and to all the scientific theories and progress we know.

If we would like to say it in other ways, it is Only responsible of the Big Beng, of the First Materials, but then what and how happened is all merit of something not related to any God or science, just it happened and we don't know why. And we study, or better science does it, "how and what" (and when, and where), but the radical "why" of Universe's existence surely can't have a certain answer (as I said, the First Unmover Mover only gave the first materials, and then it disappeared as it appeared, but my thoughts are even above the religious reasoning).

Obviously, this is my opinion, which I found after years of formation. Still today scientists don't know what to believe. The most important Italian Physicist believes in something really near to me (I don't remember his exact opinion).

The truth will always be a Mistery.

 

[Solid]

Not really. I already said it: this First Unmoved Mover is something (unmoved, immaterial, it's impossible to describe it) which gave origin to the Big Bang, to the creation of the Universe, of what Existed at very first in the Universe.
But, then, nothing more! It is not influent on the Universe's history (it has Never been influent), movements, planets, gravity, and so on. It was only the first mover of everything. Indeed, everything was built up then according to evolution and to all the scientific theories and progress we know.
[...]
The truth will always be a Mistery.

First of all, you're wrong about the mystery part. It "certainly" wont happen during our lifetimes, but it will happen eventually(provided we don't destroy ourselves before that)
I know what you mean with your concept and I already told you that it's the exact train of thought that leads to the slowdown of scientific discovery. You just accept the thing you said as a fact. Earlier you even said that "we don't have to take care[...] That would be just useless.", which is just plain ridiculous. This is the basis that all religions have in common: "it happened, don't question it because we'll never find out anyways". As a simple fact, thinking that way is malicious to science, as it basically keeps us from uncovering the actual truth. It seems to me that you're just scared of actually saying that you have no idea how everything came into existence from nothing(which might be a completely wrong way to think about it anyways), so you're putting a decoy there to give you a little bit of comfort - your First Unmoved Mover(oh what a lovely word that is).

but the radical "why" of Universe's existence surely can't have a certain answer (as I said, the First Unmover Mover only gave the first materials, and then it disappeared as it appeared, but my thoughts are even above the religious reasoning).

The question "why" is a dumb one anyways, since it implies that the universe needs a reason to be there, which is simply not the case.

 

[Supreme]

I'm Catholic legally. Today religions are still transmitted by parents. You got baptism when you are 1 year old, and that's one of the reasons because of which I hate this religion : No fuc*ing infant can understand anything of religion!

Actually, I'm Atheist as a matter of fact, I don't believe in the Christian God, or of any existing Religion. But, as I said, I'm "branded" as Christian.
I attend the Italian Scientific College (Liceo Scientifico) and you can imagine how this can be influent in my choose (I see worlds with objective eyes). Speaking about the problems of Catholicism would be a bit difficult, since I would never end. But, there are surely better religions.

I don't go to Church, I don't pray, I don't believe to miracles, or anything similar. I celebrate the Christian festivities (like Christmas), but not in the right religious manner, only in the "party" side of them (gifts, food, and so on).


What about you?

I ignore religion but if people ask I just say Catholic because I know a shit ton about the religion.
My parents aren't religious in anyway, neither is any part of my living family.

 

[Matth]

It seems to me that you're just scared of actually saying that you have no idea how everything came into existence from nothing

Completelly wrong. I wrote it in past replies: I don't give any importance to God or to our origins, since this would be extremely useless. Just, it can be nice or interesting to meditate on that, but nothing else: we mustn't feel this influence (past and misterious influence) over us.
Surely, nothing can come from... nothing.
No God? Well, okay, we could say that Everything came into existence from Nothing, no problem.
What if I Place a God (a god as I described it, which doesn't merit our attentions, which we mustn't worship) at the middle between the Nothing and What came after Nothing? That's the same thing at all.
Anyway, we should then ask ourselves after my idea: Who made that God, so? And we won't have an end.

But no, we mustn't meditate too much on that. That's the point. We mustn't give all this importance to it in our lives.

Surely, Solid, your idea and my idea are rather better than most of people's ideas.
People became slave of Religion, as Giordano Bruno said. And that's the worst thing to do.
I'd like you to read something about Pietro Pomponazzi, an Italian lived in the 16th century.
He said: Politics and governors have always used religions to administrate their people. Wrong, no?

 

[Matth]

It seems to me that you're just scared of actually saying that you have no idea how everything came into existence from nothing

Completelly wrong. I wrote it in past replies: I don't give any importance to God or to our origins, since this would be extremely useless. Just, it can be nice or interesting to meditate on that, but nothing else: we mustn't feel this influence (past and misterious influence) over us.
Surely, nothing can come from... nothing.
No God? Well, okay, we could say that Everything came into existence from Nothing, no problem.
What if I Place a God (a god as I described it, which doesn't merit our attentions, which we mustn't worship) at the middle between the Nothing and What came after Nothing? That's the same thing at all.
Anyway, we should then ask ourselves after my idea: Who made that God, so? And we won't have an end.

But no, we mustn't meditate too much on that. That's the point. We mustn't give all this importance to it in our lives.

Surely, Solid, your idea and my idea are rather better than most of people's ideas.
People became slave of Religion, as Giordano Bruno said. And that's the worst thing to do.
I'd like you to read something about Pietro Pomponazzi, an Italian lived in the 16th century.
He said: Politics and governors have always used religions to administrate their people. Wrong, no?

 

[Solid]

I don't give any importance to God or to our origins, since this would be extremely useless. Just, it can be nice or interesting to meditate on that, but nothing else: we mustn't feel this influence (past and misterious influence) over us.

And that's the point where I strongly disagree with you. In my opinion finding out what actually happened is a very valuable thing to learn. Not only because it could potentially wipe out all religions but also because it's probably very important important if we want to fully understand our universe.

What if I Place a God (a god as I described it, which doesn't merit our attentions, which we mustn't worship) at the middle between the Nothing and What came after Nothing? That's the same thing at all.

It's not the same thing at all. You're basically adding an additional(and, dare I say it, unnecessary) element to the equation that no one really asked for in the first place

Anyway, we should then ask ourselves after my idea: Who made that God, so? And we won't have an end.

That's actually the question religious people always avoid answering, which is very funny if you think about it.
If we're able to discover what caused the big bang(btw if you want to hear my opinion, since I haven't stated it yet: I'm currently on the side of the people who say that it was just a lucky quantum fluctuation) I'm pretty sure at this point we're advanced enough to go further than that, if it turns out to be anything related to some sort of being. Regardless of that, the chain wont be endless for sure.

People became slave of Religion, as Giordano Bruno said. And that's the worst thing to do. I'd like you to read something about Pietro Pomponazzi, an Italian lived in the 16th century.
He said: Politics and governors have always used religions to administrate their people. Wrong, no?

What he said sounds a lot like the things Karl Marx said about religion (the most famous one probably being the "Religion is the opium of the people" quote) and I mostly agree with the note that religion used to and is still (to an extend anyways) used, to control the people of a country. Nowadays it's also used to give people with weak personalities and little self confidence something so they don't kill themselves because they realize life is merciless and doesn't stop to comfort them.

 

[Supreme]

TL;DR: I presume you guys are arguing over religion?
Can't people just agree that people agree with some things and others don't and just live in peace with the fact that not everyone is the same?

 

[Solid]

TL;DR we're both atheists(I'm probably more aggressive than him though) and argue over something else. Read it or not but don't ask for a tl;dr on a complex topic.

EDIT: Actually I'm gonna be a nice person now, edited the post to not hurt your feelings too much, buddy.

 

[Matth]

What he said sounds a lot like the things Karl Marx said about religion

Yes, but Pomponazzi lived 3 centuries before Marx, and Giordano Bruno lived 2 centuries before him (These 2 Italians are like in a shadow, most of people don't know them, but they really were very important)

In my opinion finding out what actually happened is a very valuable thing to learn. Not only because it could potentially wipe out all religions but also because it's probably very important important if we want to fully understand our universe.

That's true, but you know that's particularly Hard. I think we will solve this mistery only in 2 centuries at least, more or less.
So, I'm pretty sure that Waiting for an Answer uselessly is not the best thing to do in our life, but then everybody can choose his lifestyle towards Universe and his mistery (and towards Gods, too).

we're both atheists(I'm probably more aggressive than him though) and argue over something else.

I'm Atheist in the sense that I don't believe in any God worshipped in this Earth (officially), my God is something which is even above theology and philosophy, something who existed for just few moments. But, then, yes, I consider myself an Atheist who unluckily has had baptism and holy communion.
Surely you are more "Aggressive", yes, but your mental position is very interesting anyway.
How much I'd like people to start reasoning with THEIR mind, how would I.

 

[Solid]

Yes, but Pomponazzi lived 3 centuries before Marx, and Giordano Bruno lived 2 centuries before him (These 2 Italians are like in a shadow, most of people don't know them, but they really were very important)

Oh yes I noticed that they lived before Marx, what they said just reminded me of his opinion about religion

That's true, but you know that's particularly Hard. I think we will solve this mistery only in 2 centuries at least, more or less. So, I'm pretty sure that Waiting for an Answer uselessly is not the best thing to do in our life, but then everybody can choose his lifestyle towards Universe and his mistery (and towards Gods, too).

That's very true indeed. I was not really talking about waiting for an answer uselessly(because that really is pointless) but I just generally disagree with the mentality of "oh it happened exactly so and so... no reason to work on it then I guess". My opinion on the matter will always be the one that is supported with the most evidence. Since we currently have 0 evidence for any supernatural being(regardless of how long it stayed around after the big bang) and we at least know that our universe is mostly flat and thus >could've< been created by quantum fluctuations, for now I'm sided with the people who say that that's true. This is of course subject to change, if there's enough evidence to actually disprove current theories and support something else.

Surely you are more "Aggressive", yes, but your mental position is very interesting anyway.

I've heard that quite a lot, although in very different situations from this... Well, they didn't always use the word "interesting" :]

 

[EvoWarrior5]

You're very special, Solid.

Now that we're talking about the Universe, I have heard about it being mostly flat. However, if it is infinite (and it might be, we don't know) then how can you possibly say that it has a shape? I never understood that.

 

[Solid]

You're very special, Solid.

That's also a way to put it

Now that we're talking about the Universe, I have heard about it being mostly flat. However, if it is infinite (and it might be, we don't know) then how can you possibly say that it has a shape? I never understood that.

The fact that it's infinite doesn't really have any effect on it's abilities to have a shape, because the term "shape" does mean something different than what it does in everyday language.
Basically, when you draw a triangle on a piece of paper, the sum of the angles in a triangle will be exactly 180°. That is the definition of flatness, when people talk about a flat universe. Sadly, imagining a curved 3d universe is beyond my abilities(and anyone who says he can is probably insane) so it's much easier to explain it in 2 dimensions. So, the earth in an excellent example of a 2D universe, curved into a 3rd dimension(that's what people call a "closed universe"). If we drew a big enough triangle on the earth, we could manage to draw one with 3, 90° angles, adding up to a total of 270°. If I had an open universe the angles wouldn't add up to 180° at all.

Examples of those 3 different types of universes(keep in mind that those are 2D universes, only they're curved into a 3rd dimension):

So basically if we had a big enough triangle, we could measure the shape of the universe. In the last 1 or 2 decades, we've managed to find something like that, namely the cosmic microwave background, aka the constant radiation we can measure from the big bang. Since I just found a video of someone explaining that exact process way better than I can, I'll leave you with that:

34m44s, in case the timestamp doesn't work.

EDIT: Nope the timestamp doesn't work... Is there any way to not embedd the video?