Jump to content

Which Religion Is The Best?


Recommended Posts

Ok. In terms of morality, ethics, opinions, and just plain lack of stupidy, which of the major religions is the best?I think it's Buddhism. No scriptures full of fairy tales. Very peaceful and teaches good moral values. Also is deeply rooted in self discovery and its belief that everything is connected, which is uncanny to what is now understood in mordern physics.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Atheism, AINEC.
Atheism is not a religion. Please no more atheism responses. I think the atheists - I am one too - have the most to add to this debate since they are the most impartial.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Atheism is not a religion. Please no more atheism responses. I think the atheists - I am one too - have the most to add to this debate since they are the most impartial.
Then I'd have to say that Buddhism makes me want to vomit the least, since its the only religion that hasn't knocked on my door on a Saturday afternoon asking me to "see the light" or "join them in prayer" . Disgusting.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Then I'd have to say that Buddhism makes me want to vomit the least, since its the only religion that hasn't knocked on my door on a Saturday afternoon asking me to "see the light" or "join them in prayer" . Disgusting.
jews have done that to you?
Link to post
Share on other sites
jews have done that to you?
You know those jews, always wanting people to convert. Always going on crusades to force their religion on people. Always preaching in the corner or on the bus trying to help us sinners. Trying to get me to wear those hats, how dare they!
Link to post
Share on other sites
You know those jews, always wanting people to convert. Always going on crusades to force their religion on people. Always preaching in the corner or on the bus trying to help us sinners. Trying to get me to wear those hats, how dare they!
U7771-300.jpgIs this the hat you speak of?
Link to post
Share on other sites
here is my unscientific proof that entropy can be reversed.it seems far more likely that the universe is infinitely cycling from birth to death than a singularity never to be repeated.statistically, since the infinite universe would contain infinite universes,and the finite only one, we would be infinitely more likely to be in aninfinite universe. this means the universe is infinite.if the universe is infinite- we exist. this proves it.of course the interesting question is whether any information can get past thecycle. my guess is no, but i cant think of a conceivable way to test this, even if a race of godlike beings could run any possible experiment.note- i am not sure if my "statistical" logic is actually correct.
Link to post
Share on other sites
here is my unscientific proof that entropy can be reversed.it seems far more likely that the universe is infinitely cycling from birth to death than a singularity never to be repeated.
that's a mistake hawking called the biggest he ever made - he tried to prove the arrow of entropy reverses in a collapsing universe, and one of his students ended up proving him wrong. based on current models the arrows of time/entropy should continue in the same direction even if the universe collapses.anyway as far as i know most current evidence points to no collapse - the rate of expansion of our universe seems to be increasing even now, and we are more likely headed toward a heat death rather than a recycling big crunch.
Link to post
Share on other sites
that's a mistake hawking called the biggest he ever made - he tried to prove the arrow of entropy reverses in a collapsing universe, and one of his students ended up proving him wrong. based on current models the arrows of time/entropy should continue in the same direction even if the universe collapses.anyway as far as i know most current evidence points to no collapse - the rate of expansion of our universe seems to be increasing even now, and we are more likely headed toward a heat death rather than a recycling big crunch.
thats not what im saying. i guess i should have clarified.im saying that the entropy arrow never reverses, but the amount of entropy gets reset when the universe collapses and reemerges in a quantum fluctuation, or whatever the big bang was. i wouldnt put much stock in the current evidence. we only know what 4 percent of the supposed mass in the universe is. the one thing we do know is that the mass is balanced pretty close to the critical value. it doesnt take much of a stretch to assume that we might bump the 96 percent of unknown stuff up to 97 percent at some time in the future.but for entropy to be reversed, i dont really even need this particular universe to collapse. there just has to be the possibility of a big bang occurring again in some other universe or this one.we could talk all day about this, but i think the bottom line is that nobody nows how this universe began, what is going to happen to it, or even how to define the universe.and, i predict, it will be a long time before anyone does.
Link to post
Share on other sites
thats not what im saying. i guess i should have clarified.im saying that the entropy arrow never reverses, but the amount of entropy gets reset when the universe collapses and reemerges in a quantum fluctuation, or whatever the big bang was. i wouldnt put much stock in the current evidence. we only know what 4 percent of the supposed mass in the universe is. the one thing we do know is that the mass is balanced pretty close to the critical value. it doesnt take much of a stretch to assume that we might bump the 96 percent of unknown stuff up to 97 percent at some time in the future.but for entropy to be reversed, i dont really even need this particular universe to collapse. there just has to be the possibility of a big bang occurring again in some other universe or this one.we could talk all day about this, but i think the bottom line is that nobody nows how this universe began, what is going to happen to it, or even how to define the universe.and, i predict, it will be a long time before anyone does.
ic.agreed we don't know much, but there does appear to be strong evidence the rate of expansion is increasing, which means there might be a force at work that trumps the critical mass debate.yes your arguments apply equally to an infinite number of spawning universes that don't collapse as well as to a cycling single one.
Link to post
Share on other sites
that's a mistake hawking called the biggest he ever made - he tried to prove the arrow of entropy reverses in a collapsing universe, and one of his students ended up proving him wrong. based on current models the arrows of time/entropy should continue in the same direction even if the universe collapses.anyway as far as i know most current evidence points to no collapse - the rate of expansion of our universe seems to be increasing even now, and we are more likely headed toward a heat death rather than a recycling big crunch.
So then it would seem science would agree with bible on this on in a manner of speaking- the rainbow is a symbolic message from God promising to never again destroy mankind by water- next time it will be by fire.
Link to post
Share on other sites
So then it would seem science would agree with bible on this on in a manner of speaking- the rainbow is a symbolic message from God promising to never again destroy mankind by water- next time it will be by fire.
or by dissipation on energy trillions of years in the future, anyway.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...