What the pineapple am I?

No this isn't a question of physical description, I'm looking for a definition (more of a specific word) that describes my beliefs.

So far the only thing i can describe myself as is a "philosopher", but when i say this it usually gets the same general response (something like :f6: or ).. so i come here hoping to find someone who either has a word for what i am or may share my beliefs and has a "better" thing to call me

I'd like to first say before we i describe my beliefs that i do not mean to offend anyone and I am not a professional in such things as "Quantum Physics" or "Religious study" so I'm sure my views have some flaws... as well i am fully aware that "Asking questions" about God isn't suppose to be here but that is not what i am doing, I am merely looking for... my label

At first i was a born and raise Christian though my family was non-denominational so we didn't go to church that often but i did go to Catholic school all my life (1st Grade - High-School), upon doing so i got to know a lot about my religion, there were to many contradictions for me to remain faithful (i base i a lot of my actions on logic IN REAL LIFE) and to many people who only "acted" Christian when it was convenient (REF: Fox News), which disgusted me... so I somewhat kept some of the "good morels of Christianity" (some of ten Commandments and SOME teachings of Jesus) but for the most part i abandoned the religion and have yet to consider myself a Christian. As a "Tangent" last note I'm aware not all Christian are "bad" and that the people whom worship a religion don't necessarily represent it but I'm one for full equal rights and Christianity doesn't seem to allow that (REF: Gay Marriage, slavery, women, etc...)

I become an Atheist late into High-school but because I'm a logical person i questioned that as well, Atheism is the absences of god and the beliefs everything can be explained with "logical & provable" science... but within our own existence it explains the theory of evolution (which i understand) and the Big Bang theory which explains the existence of the universe, which for a while i accepted as an absolute truth. However one day i thought to myself "if everything has an origin what is the "Big Bangs" origin?"... this thought bothered me for a while, i knew what could cause the big bang but then i asked "what made that"... then i just kept going in an infinite loop to the eventual realization that SOMETHING has to have happened that can neither be explained or proved, the "Origins of Origins" if you will.... i didn't know what that "thing" was but for a while i decided to make myself "Agnostic", which is the beliefs there is a "god" but it doesn't necessarily fall into any religious category...

I left that in the back of my mind so i could "rest" my thoughts (even typing this makes my head hurt ), but upon another "thought" i came to another conclusion of why does "ONE" thing have to be true... why does one necessarily have to have one god, or nothing, what exactly prevents Buddha and Jesus from BOTH existing, what prevents everyone from going to their own separate heaven or hells... nothing, it's just one man thought against another but not at one point in time did they ever think "We both could be right!"... so essentially to sum that all up I believe "in the Absents of everything and the existence of everything"... it can be true and false... either, or, neither, nor.. and we can only think what is right by what we know and just try not to have conflicting personal views... I'm still looking on a better way to explain it but...

That's all Folks so....
TL;DR
What the pineapple am I?

If this is against the rules lock/move it please....

Sounds like you're Apathetic. You don't practice any religion but you accept that their could be a God. I was going to write a lot more but I'm also apathetic. (word play~)

Sounds like you're Apathetic. You don't practice any religion but you accept that their could be a God. I was going to write a lot more but I'm also apathetic. (word play~)

That's Agnosticism... but you're thinking so thank you

[...]so I'm sure my views have some flaws[...]

Perception is flawed.

Freethought is one way to label it.

I've had thought of origin of big bang and whatever created that and etc... in high school too. I've made up many theories to the origin of universe. The one I believe now is that nothing exist in this world, we're in a dream world, dream is created by thoughts it is possibly that everything that exists in this world is created by your subconcious mind. If everyone believes in a certain god, then that god would show himself. The earth was flat a long time ago, because everyone believed it is so. The earth is round now because everyone believes it is round.

Some stupid prove of my theory: natural disasters have happened more often in recent years because of creation of disaster movies and more people believes that disaster would happen.
More report of alien/paranormal activities because of alien/ghost movies.

Yea I know my theory is stupid, but it made more sense to me, than god exists.

The earth was flat a long time ago, because everyone believed it is so. The earth is round now because everyone believes it is round.

If it use to be flat, when 99% of the world thought it was flat, how did a select few arrive at the conclusion that it was round? :f6:

As for my theories about the Big Bang, I go off of something I read in Discovery once: About 14 billion years ago what we call length, width, depth, and time were created, just like a box's length if created when you connect some parts. To say "before" that is tricky because "before" implies there was time to go by, when there wasn't. "5 meters before the start line", in a sense. But if you could conceptualize a "negative" time (pre big bang), it would be a universe rapidly collapsing under it's own force of some sort(like gravity), condensing everything into nothing (picture forcing the sides of the box together so hard they fall apart), then it begins expanding (they bounce around your walls and fall back into place). After some long time (I believe the magazine said 1-2 trillion years?) the universe will collapse into nothing again (The Big Crunch), and a new verse will begin with different laws of physics and forces. Heck, in 20 billion years there could be 6 Fundamental forces, uposed to the 4 we currently observe.
This cycle goes on forever. I see no reason why something needs a "start" because "start" implies some formal way of recording, and predicting, when various things happen. "when" implies time, which is a dimension like length and depth, and is continuously recreated.

Somewhere you'd fit in the 11 dimensions of Quantum theory. Iunno. I'll solidify this more in collage when I meet teachers who know more than the bare minimum to teach their respective classes. ._.

If it use to be flat, when 99% of the world thought it was flat, how did a select few arrive at the conclusion that it was round? :f6:

For those few who believed it was round, the earth is round for them, then by traveling around earth, they convinced everyone else that the earth is round, thus every1 believes earth is round now.
This "believe" only works because the person who traveled around the earth believes that it is round. For example, if you believe something, and everyone else around you doesn't believe it, then the thing you believe turns false.
Also according to this theory, everything discovered by science are the things scientists expected to discover, when they conduct the experiment.


Again this is just my stupid theory...

But how does your theory explain signs of the Earth being round while 99% of the world believed it was flat, such as shadow lengths and star constellations?

To say "before" that is tricky because "before" implies there was time to go by, when there wasn't. "5 meters before the start line", in a sense. But if you could conceptualize a "negative" time (pre big bang), it would be a universe rapidly collapsing under it's own force of some sort(like gravity), condensing everything into nothing (picture forcing the sides of the box together so hard they fall apart), then it begins expanding (they bounce around your walls and fall back into place).

Not necessarily? My "Beliefs" acknowledge that as a possibility but not absolute... we or rather the scientist whom created the "big bang" theory have "in a sense" concluded that the "concept" of time did not exist pre-Bang (moving forward or backwards), however this is not absolute... WHAT the big bang was is still more or less a mystery (random particle fluctuation, massive explosion, etc...) but the "when" of the Big bang has been thought of to be the existence/origin of time (or at least our concept) to "un-complicate" the theory but there's nothing to back that up.

i mean for the concept of the big bang theory to even exist there had to be some "space" for the "Bang" to occur in... meaning some form of time had to have existed pre-bang, even if it was a split mille-second, but some form of space or Dimensional area HAS to have existed (considering you can't "create" space... as far as i know). Meaning time had to have existed pre-bang, hell in theory the big bang may have not been the start in time at all... merely a mark in it.

But how does your theory explain signs of the Earth being round while 99% of the world believed it was flat, such as shadow lengths and star constellations?

those astronomers who looked at the stars thought that maybe the earth is round before they look at it, and when they see it, they say earth is round.

Not necessarily? My "Beliefs" acknowledge that as a possibility but not absolute... we or rather the scientist whom created the "big bang" theory have "in a sense" concluded that the "concept" of time did not exist pre-Bang (moving forward or backwards), however this is not absolute... WHAT the big bang was is still more or less a mystery (random particle fluctuation, massive explosion, etc...) but the "when" of the Big bang has been thought of to be the existence/origin of time (or at least our concept) to "un-complicate" the theory but there's nothing to back that up.

i mean for the concept of the big bang theory to even exist there had to be some "space" for the "Bang" to occur in... meaning some form of time had to have existed pre-bang, even if it was a split mille-second, but some form of space or Dimensional area HAS to have existed (considering you can't "create" space... as far as i know). Meaning time had to have existed pre-bang, hell in theory the big bang may have not been the start in time at all... merely a mark in it.

Well, if you look at time as a dimension like length and width, you can think of the universe as a big cone. As you move in one direction, things appear to move (REF: concept of video). This is what we presive as time. If you could look at everything from a nonhuman perspective, you wouldn't see motion, just one giant 'image'. I suppose this raises questions about decision making and stuff.

Again, this is what I believe atm. Not saying you or Horusmaster is wrong. :[
I am a bit curious about Horusmaster's theory though.

those astronomers who looked at the stars thought that maybe the earth is round before they look at it, and when they see it, they say earth is round.

This assumes all discoveries are made because people are trying to prove something- but what of the inspiration? I don't remember names well, but one of the early thinkers on a spherical globe theory got inspiration from stuff like the stars and shadows. "Since the shadows behave like this... is the Earth round?", not the other way around.
After a theory is thought up, more test can be done to accumulate evidence that supports or rejects it, in which your theory would kick in and change what's true were the former true.

That's Agnosticism... but you're thinking so thank you

Agnosticism maintains that it is impossible to know. Apatheism doesn't care and doesn't think anyone should waste their time with it.