Bittersweet Candy Bowl Forums

Talk about what your beliefs are about the existence of a God or Gods, life after death and Evolution vs. Creationism.

I've thought about it a lot and I absolutely do not believe in God, I believe nothing happens after you die and I believe that Evolution makes perfect sense.

This is a serious discussion and I would very much like to know what every thinks about this.

PS. If you can find funny sayings about Religion than post it here.

-Mikanada

This post has been edited by Mikanada: 14 January 2011 - 04:07 AM

I'm not especially religious.
I guess I'm kind of middling the line, since I believe that evolution is pretty much fact, but also find the idea that in the beginning of the universe all matter appeared for no discernible reason to be somewhat ludicrous.

Oh god a thread discussing religion. BRB grabbing flak jacket.

Edit: Ooooh, I get to explain the big bang.

The idea of "All matter appeared" is thinking to small. People think of "other" universes, but the thing is it's all one universe, one space if you will, we can only see 14 billion light years away because that's the only light that has reached us. The matter of our universe (the stuff we can see) could have come from other matter outside our field of view. The big bang happens, and has happened many, many times because of heavy unstable molecules. As matter comes together due to gravity it makes ridiculously heavy and unstable atoms which exlode/collapse (Radioactive decay) "creating" a new universe. Eventually all this matter will come back to a point due to gravity creating a new heavy atom and causing a new big bang.

Or something like that it's 8am and I haven't slept yet.

Edit 2: I maded an image to explain what i'm talking about with the universe thing. The blue ring is our field of vision, which happens to be matter from "our" big bang.



And yes, i'm an Atheist.

This post has been edited by Anialator: 01 January 2011 - 08:14 AM

Only one really serious and not at all entertaining point.

Evolution has no place in a discussion on Religion. Evolution is defined as the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations. That's it. Nowhere in that does it say that it disproves anything related to a person's beliefs. It isn't even the change itself, it is only the description of it. It really does have no barring on a discussion on faith, as believing in one does not stop one from believing in another, which is helpful because I'd have difficulty not believing in evolution as it is defined.
Faith is faith. Science is science. Only problems arise when the two are mixed. Evolution vs. Creationism is a silly argument, because it's really a fight between people who believe people were created in the way they are today through the process of evolution and the people who believe an all powerful deity placed humans on the Earth as they are, with no changes. Evolution is a scientific definition, and as such can't be refuted because there isn't anything to disprove.
Being a scientific definition, you can't apply it to a religious argument. Science and Faith are almost polar opposites. Science tries to use fact and reason to create iron clad definitions, while Faith is a person's ability to believe without proof because they believe it to be true. On the most basic level, and this is the important part, no one has any proof of a omnipotent deity that exists, nor do they have any proof that it doesn't. Science can't help you define faith.

TL;DR, please don't try to incorporate evolution in a discussion of religion. It isn't a faith. It is a part of science.
EDIT: I don't mean to be an ass about this but the two are separate and I want to make sure this is understood.

This post has been edited by Gameking218: 01 January 2011 - 09:00 AM

But Game, the fact remains that some people ACTUALLY BELIEVE IN CREATIONISM. 0_0

Evolution is a part of religious discussions because the bible says that the world was made in 7 days. If the bible is outright wrong about that, other parts of it can be wrong too.

This post has been edited by Anialator: 01 January 2011 - 08:20 AM

Still not entertaining.

The Bible is the written word of God as interpreted through man. It is generally believed that the story of the creation of the world in seven days is not literal, and was an inspired work or some other term. Basically, the person was inspired by God and made a story to try and convey his super godly awesomeness. The story of Adam & Eve falls under the same category. Basically, the entire Bible can be wrong because man got it wrong, not God. If someone writes "Always kill" in the Bible it doesn't mean that's what God wanted. It's kind of a catch-all, but it makes sense when you consider the ideas of the faith.
And I say this from the view point of the Catholic faith I've come to understand, which is to say intelligent arguments and reasonable logic. I personally believe that when people believe that the creation happened as it was in the Bible word for word it's more of a mob mentality than rock solid faith. People are just trying to defend their faith and say "I think evolution is wrong" without first learning about it.

EDIT: GAAH serious post is serious. Someone post about something silly and get this back on the wrong track.

This post has been edited by Gameking218: 01 January 2011 - 09:00 AM

What is the non literal meaning of the creation of the world in 7 days?

I hate modern art too. Being all non literal and stuff.

mikanada im sorry nothing against you as a person or anything but oh my god do you make the worst threads

This post has been edited by whf: 01 January 2011 - 08:40 AM

Well, as far as I understand, the accepted model for the evolution of the universe involves only one "Big Bang" ever happening, with the part of the universe that we can see being termed "visible universe". What actually happened in the first small fraction of a second isn't known for sure, and any theory of the origin of the universe (where did mass/energy come from, why, etc.) are more or less unanswerable, even if we can say that in the first 10^-40 second this or that happened, considering that we only have one universe with one history to study. And anyhow, you can't say this is when matter 'appeared' if we are considering the event (big bang) to be the simultaneous first moment of time. But yea enough about that.

And, trying to say that science and faith are not intertwined is just plain wrong. Many claim [by faith] that certain religious texts contain scientific and historical truths to whatever degree of accuracy, forcing some scientists to reach conclusions that would not be justified otherwise ( for example, the claim of many creation scientists that the decay rate of elements is affected (reduced) by radiation, in order to support a 4000 or so year old earth, a finding not supported by the mainstream scientific community ). People believe in a God (or gods) which DO things, and have DONE things. A God that doesn't do shit is irrelevant and we can only know what it has supposedly done through religious scriptures of some sort.

If God only has a connection with the human mind and not with the world around us, then this is definitely not the God many, if not most, believe in. And furthermore, if this is the case, then there is no reason to believe that God is even external in any sense, if it only interacts with the mind, heck maybe it only exists there too.

tl;dr - maybe im taking this all a bit too seriously

This post has been edited by meowwowo: 01 January 2011 - 09:11 AM

meowwowo, on 01 January 2011 - 09:11 AM, said:

Anyone who takes part in a discussion about Religion is taking it too seriously.

@WTF
That was amazing.

@Anialator
To answer your question: Hilarious.

Aaaand serious face.

This post has been edited by Gameking218: 01 January 2011 - 09:28 AM

"But rather they choose to think of ideas that prove their own logic right because they wanted science to coincide with faith; manipulating the evidence to prove the wrong conclusion rather than using the evidence to find the right conclusion."

TBH everyone does this, just a little bit, if you have an idea and you find a piece of evidence that supports your idea then you will be more willing to accept it. My knowledge of the big bang started with 3 rules using secondary school knowledge:

All of matter is effected by gravity and is pulled to a single point
Matter when under extreme gravity fuses to form heavy (and therefore unstable) atoms.
Unstable atoms decay, the bigger the atom, the more violent the reaction.

It is from these rules that I expanded my knowledge of the universe, adding more detail as I found more evidence, creating my own understanding of the way the universe works based on what makes sense. If one of these rules was proven wrong it messed with my understanding and would make me come up with a new understanding of how things work.

At one point my Gravity rule got broke by the idea of anti-gravity, however this is all a bit theoretical and I think that the acceleration of matter away from the point of origin is due to the gravity from matter outside our universe's field of vision. I need to do more research here.

My point is that my "belief/faith" (my idea of how the universe works) dislikes the idea of anti-gravity, and so looks for another reason for this change in acceleration.

Quote

If I may - the belief that the Earth was made in just seven days sprung out in the 20th Century, or possibly the nineteenth. It is not an original idea, nor is it the only way to interpret the story of Creation. Other interpretations are, for instance, that it is merely a description of how the Earth and its fruits are reborn every Spring, or that the story is a direct allegory rather than a derivation of what they believed at the time (or now). Many others abound everywhere. I, myself, am a bit partial to the former. ^_^

Also, Game makes a rather good point, although I disagree with his exact articulation of it. Science and religion are helplessly intertwined, not only in cause and effect, but also in their expression and - this really cannot be stressed enough - in history. In fact, the majority of scientists as late as the 1800s were religious, and the very faith in God or gods has inspired many discoveries that we would not have had otherwise. In fact, if there had been no such supernatural inspiration, chances are that we would not have made even a hundredth of the discoveries we have made. It is, as Meow says, plain silly to say that they have no connection at all, or that they should not have one. However, the point of yours that I agree with, Game, is that it is a bad idea to uninspiredly pull science and evolution into discussions of religion. It brings no good fruit at all.


Oh, and I am apparently alone in this forum. How fun. ^_^

i bet THIS WON'T turn into an ugly and stupid,overly long,debate with no conclusion and insults from suitcase.

fingers crossed !

Meh, there are four types of people in this world. Those who believe in a faith because they were told to, those who believe because they found a faith that reflects how they want things to be, those who don't believe because there is no proof and in their mind that's proof of the opposite, and those who don't believe because there is no proof, and don't not believe because there is no proof of the opposite. All four groups have their sane members, their zealots and their nutcases, and they are spread throughout the faiths or non-faiths more or less equally.

Personally, I fall into the last one. I don't believe in any particular god or spiritual being, but in absence of proof to the contrary I don't really not believe.

As far as the seven days argument goes, there is a somewhat popular theory that the 7 days are not 7 literal days, but seven "ages." In absence of the "original" text and the fact that I am not the least bit bilingual, I can't say whether or not this is what the writer intended. But if you ask me, a being that can create the universe out of nothing likely has nobody they NEED to impress.

Edit: After rereading what I said I realized that I might have come across as harsh in my first paragraph, particularly on groups 2 and 3. Group 2 is actually using religion in one of the ways it was intended--for comfort and reassurance in a harsh, callous world. That is as important today as it was on the savannah--it's just that we have different predators now. As for point 3, it's pretty much the same as point 2 but in reverse--the lack of proof of god or divinity is emphasized in how callous and harsh the world is. And my group is basically a bunch of people who just don't want to make a choice...

This post has been edited by Carcharocles: 01 January 2011 - 04:21 PM

I really don't know where I sit on the scale of religiouseness.

On one hand I have never heard of a religion which sums up my beliefs, also it just seems a bit dodgy that existing religions can be so precise with what the god/s want/are/do. I mean really the only way the creators of these religions could have come up with the specifics is if god himself sat down and had a talk with them, which just doesn't sit right because if a being wanted people to believe in it's existance it would likely tell more than one person, one person who chances are no one will believe.

On the other hand I do think that there is a possibility that a being/s may have been responsible for creating life on Earth and life in other parts of the universe. I do not think that this being/s is all powerful though and could not have been responsible for creating everything as well as being psychic and watching everything everywhere all the time, it just goes against too many physical laws.

Then there is the inevitable question of what created that being, and what created the one before etc, at this point I normally stop thinking and just say "stuff it, not as if anyone will ever know anyway".

There is my mixed religiouse veiws, some fun stuff there

Edit: yeah I probably land in group 4 of what Carcharocles said

This post has been edited by matty_batty0: 01 January 2011 - 04:54 PM

I believe that there must be something greater than ourselves out there, but I think that calling it "God" and worshipping it as master of all is pointless. If that being were so mighty, then it would have descended and sorted us all out long ago. I sit at a point that is just satisfied with the world, and will try to make it a better place.
This is irrelevant, but what I really hate is athiests who call themselves athiests beause they can't be bothered to really think about religion, or, worse, can't be bothered to go to any kind of church. I think that religion can have a place in society; corporate greed doesn't have to overtake everything.

This post has been edited by Sammy: 01 January 2011 - 05:09 PM

I see no evidence that something I could call "God" exists, so I don't believe that it does. This will change if and only if such evidence presents itself.

Besides, there are some fairly severe logical problems with having an all seeing, all knowing, all powerful and perfectly loving being. Why would such a thing allow evil and suffering? If god had the ability to stop a child from burning to death in a house fire, then it was wrong to allow it.

I try to keep an open mind about this though. If there really were an all powerful being who decided to make the universe and hide for 13.7 billion years, then there wouldn't really be a way for me to prove or disprove its existence, would there?

I'm not against organized religion at all, the only thing that gets me down is when some group of people starts becoming militaristic about their ideas - and this happens for Christians, Jewish people, atheists, you name it! I think that the world would be way better off if everyone just tried to keep a bit of an open mind about these things.

Richard Dawkins wrote the Atheist Bible after a priest used him as a glove.

Anialator, on 01 January 2011 - 07:54 AM, said:

You know, I was about to post a long winded explanation about how your theory still doesn't answer the idea that all matter in our reality came from nothing. And about how what you're talking about isn't radioactive decay. But then I remembered the thread's topic and how ridiculously touchy some people are.
So I didn't.

It might not have all come from nothing - currently they think that the big bang happened as a result of the collision of two branes.

But anyway - I don't see the gigantic problem here, why is it a problem to have something that just always existed in one form or another?

I'm not religious or believe in most of the teachings of most religions but I believe in a higher power. Let's see if that makes sense.

My flame war senses are tingling I'm just not gonna tell anyone what I believe and support whatever the hell you wanna be.

TheBellBoy, on 01 January 2011 - 06:16 PM, said:

It's called Theistic Agnosticism.

this is an incredibly vague idea for a topic
you are all typing big walls of text about yourself
no one cares

Snooths is this forum's living walking TL;DR. ^_^

Nobody cares about nobody caring, though.

I'll believe religion when I see it, no need to say it's wrong for now though, I have no problem with people believing what they want, I do have a problem with people trying to impose their beliefs on others.

Anialator that was the SHITTIEST explanation of the Big Bang I have -EVER- heard, AND it was totally inaccurate, PLEASE l2physics
I won't bother refuting what you said because I just... dont even know where to start

Best example though:
"The big bang happens, and has happened many, many times because of heavy unstable molecules"
Um. No. The Big Bang was VERY different to a few heavy molecules exploding their faces off.
So either you're trying to convey something completely different, or.... well I dont even-

this is what i think: i have no idea if gods real or not, so i'm half-way. but i'm not going to church every sunday to talk to him, and i'm not going to get on my Knees and pray to him at night eather. i'm going to talk to god in my own way: yelling his name while playing video games and when some BS happens.

This post has been edited by Domafari: 01 January 2011 - 07:27 PM

ILB, on 01 January 2011 - 07:14 PM, said:

He has a point, though.
No one on the internet really cares what you believe if you can't sum it up in one sentence.

Look religion is like your penis don't take it out in public and keep it away from your kids.

Rawrdinosaur, on 01 January 2011 - 07:30 PM, said:

Please to be having my babies.

Evolution
Religion
Keeping Kosher

First off, my personal belief is that we can't know until we're dead (for the universal god). So while its fun to theorize, that's all we can do. Aka, don't believe or dis-believe. Category 4.

There's several dozen theories about the big bang. All of them are just that: Theories. Although evidence may point towards them, that is all its doing. We currently do not have enough information to guess which one it is with anything resembling accuracy. And since little about it can be definitively proven or disproven, bringing it up in a religious debate is pointless.

Religion is just(for the three most well known) your interpretation of your holy scripture. Considering how its interpreted by man, written by man, collected by man, copied by man, translated by man, taught by man, and learned by man, thinking that any specific belief is absolute is just ridiculous to me.

Jerk, on 01 January 2011 - 07:35 PM, said:

The quote was originally more graphic but I toned it down for the childrens

Quote

Not at all. The case is rather that those who do not care, are those who talk the loudest. ^_^

Besides, the whole idea that everything should be said as shortly as possible is just silly. It brings about more confusion and misunderstanding than what a proper explanation does.

Cloud, on 01 January 2011 - 07:16 PM, said:

yeah of course
thats what makes it so stupid thanks for backing me up cloud buddy

this whole thread is, and will continue to be, people flaunting their insignificant opinions on an incredibly broad subject which is debated and argued every fucking day and will be forever, thinking they are completely righteous, while ignoring the fact that everyone else who has posted doesnt give a FUCK
so whats the point

argument-wise: it boils down to the fact that 1 side will never accept the others side and there is no "right answer" because well never fucking know
SO WHATS THE POINT YOULL NEVER SAY ANYTHING THAT HASNT BEEN SAID AND FURTHERMORE ANALYZED AND DEBUNKED BY THE OTHER SIDE ITS LIKE 2 PEOPLE TAKING A PAIR OF CINDER BLOCKS AND RUBBING THEM AGAINST EACHOTHER IN HOPES TURNING THE OTHERS TO DUST: IT GOES FUCKING NOWHERE/ ITS STUPID AS HELL/ ITS LOUD AND ANNOYING TO EVERYONE ELSE

and to top it off you all have the same opinion on religion anyway and at this point are just restating the same fucking thing over and over until someone says something different like "i beieve in god i guess but i dont put down anyone elses beliefs because i can see how people might think its silly" and then everyone will jump on them "WHY THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IF YOU CANT SEE IT IT CANT BE REAL IT MAKES NO SENSE OH GOD (WHICH IS NON-EXISTENT BY THE WAY) AAA" and then if were lucky it will slowly dissolve into "petty insults: the topic"

but no matter how fucking stupid this topic is, its still not as dumb as "philosophies" so yeah at least theres that

ILB, on 01 January 2011 - 07:14 PM, said:

typed a bunch of shit just for you pal

This post has been edited by whf: 01 January 2011 - 08:09 PM

whf, on 01 January 2011 - 08:06 PM, said:

Aren't you being a hypocrite bc your sharing your opinion on people's opinions?

nope because im not sharing an opinion that has been shared a lot in this topic/ i didnt start this topic/ your name is rawrdinosaur so youre wrong right off the bat

@this topic: Oh dear...

14 User(s) are reading this topic
2 members, 12 guests, 0 anonymous users

1. whf,
2. (nameless)

*heavy sigh*


edit: oh nevermind he posted

This post has been edited by whf: 01 January 2011 - 08:17 PM

whf, on 01 January 2011 - 08:12 PM, said:

Ok believe what you want.

thats what should have been said forever ago

This post has been edited by whf: 01 January 2011 - 08:17 PM

whf, on 01 January 2011 - 08:16 PM, said:

I don't heavy sigh much outside of RC anymore...anyway I'm agnostic, atheism is too depressing while organized religion is too corrupt, too confusing, and too fragmented.

Fine whatever I'll give in you know what I want the world to be like


Without the whole mutated people though they are kinda cool.
Note: I blamed the very large gap between the poor and the rich for why the city failed

I used to be a christian but looking at what has been going on through history and facts, I just went atheist.

whf, on 01 January 2011 - 08:10 PM, said:

tl;dr Everyone that posted more than a paragraph is an idiot.

What a topic! Honestly, if I were more awake I would read everything that everyone has had to say. That's because I am of a rare breed that does care what other people think, just for the sake of knowing them.

As for my beliefs even though it is now apparent that no one cares but it's not as if they ever cared anyway so here it goes:

I have no religion, but I do have a moderate case of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, so I guess I kinda do in a horrible way.

God is a murderer. I find it funny that Christianity is pro-murder to the extent they worship the guy who allegedly wiped out humanity once before because they went a little "wrong". That's like throwing away a cookie because it didn't have a chewy inside.

MORAL: RELIGIONS ALL HAVE A REASON NOT TO BELIEVE. :l

whf, beastly post. Love it.

He's completely right though, sadly, this kind of thing almost always descends into a flamewar because some douchecanoe will jump on someone for being religious, or vice versa.

The place for this is real life, amongst intellectuals, or your friends. Then you can actually discuss "existential bullshit" and have a -proper- discussion.
I actually rather enjoy it, but you never get anywhere with it on the internet.

Nonetheless, I don't follow a religion because I don't feel I need one. If one day we find out there is a god and afterlife or some shit, I still probably won't follow a religion, because we'll actually know their nature. I live by my own standards and morals, which just so happen to be pretty close to christian ones anyway, and those for the most part seem right. I also don't judge people on whether they do or not, I judge them on what morals and values they hold. Fanaticals? piss off. People who are far too strict about their religion? Oh dear. Those with common sense? Fair play!

Quote

But you make a mistake in your argument, Snooths. If we take it to its logical conclusion, then we should all stop eating, visiting each other, breathing or whatever. Or if you want the less extreme version, then we should all stop talking to each other, cease the function of this forum and the IRC and go about our lives without communicating any more. Just because something has been done before, that does not mean it is pointless to do again.

Oh, you might say that, at the very least, those things I mentioned have a positive effect. However, so does the discussion of beliefs and religion, of world views and spirituality. It promotes understanding for others and their mind sets, it may convince some people that they are wrong or mistaken on some counts (I have yet to see an argument on religion that does not do this; it is never the main view that is changed but lesser ideas and thoughts are always changed), it opens up rather than bottling up, and no matter what you think about it is is not just anger. Rather, those who complain about the discussion are normally those who bring most of the antagonism to the talk. ^_^

Now, I can easily see the merit in disliking that no new points are made from one discussion to another. I occasionally do, too, but what you need to realise is that without opening for the possibility of bringing forth new thoughts, we will stagnate. And new points are actually made in discussions - they may have been made before, but none of the debaters have heard them.

So I would like to argue that a discussion of this topic is valuable, even though you may not have much fun with it. And besides, the same point could be made about any debate at all.

Quote

Why, thank you. ^_^