Let's Talk Religion

[RYTEDR]

Hey guys, I added a "Topic of the Month" section on my OP, as well as Refi-chan's inquiry. Please check it out!

Well, I hadn't thought of aiming anything to you specifically, I was just putting it out there as a discussion with everyone else's responses. But okay.

Oh, I'm aware. I'm just being conversational.

That's why we don't think the Bible is the exact word of God, either; of course it was written by men, passed down through time, and there have been translations specifically made to appease powers of the time. Like in any historical work, one has to pick out the truths from the fantasies. It's likely all the people named were real, but people probably wrote representations of what they witnessed/felt because they didn't know how to express themselves. I also think God made the world to be discovered and learned, but I'll talk about that later.

So you submit that the book was written by men and is inherently flawed. That's a good start, because now we're speaking of a deity that is either too incompetent or too indifferent to ensure that the single most important truth about reality is translated and presented properly, and then proceed to judge us for not correctly following the poorly written, misconstrued and downright misleading passages that may or may not be true with no real capability of deciphering which is true and which is false. How do you discern the truth from the fantasies without what is essentially an educated guess, exactly? Are we going by the God of the Gaps, where we slowly pick apart the implausible sections of the Bible that do not coincide with reality until there is nothing left? Again, if there is a god and he is going to judge me based on an arbitrary set of rules that he created, then I want to know what I am dealing with clearly and concisely, because that's what makes sense.

There is also nothing stopping us from discovering and learning of our world if we were to have a clear, flawless holy-book directed by God itself. There is nothing stopping God from magically implanting the knowledge/guiding those who wrote the book.

even if we aren't all on the same page we can still move forward to promote peace. It hasn't stopped me from being friends with all kinds of faiths, even if their ancestors fought over such divides.

If humans as a whole had this sort of mindset, religion would be much more of a non-issue than it is today. I submit that one primary reason we are not (commonly) burning witches at the stake or stoning unruly children today is because secularism has stepped in and forced religion to behave. It's wonderful you feel that way, but I do not think you are of the majority.

That said, what exactly do you see as fairy tales? If I list a bunch of things we believe? I don't know what you're asking for here. If there were amazing miracles going on, believe me, I would be all over it too. I don't even see it as a 'faith' but more of a mindset: hard as it may be, I try to live for the sake of others. I definitely don't follow all the facets of my religion- mostly out of neglect, like prayer- but I try to live my life in a way serving something greater than myself. Being an atheist doesn't keep anyone from doing that. The main thing I'd like to 'prove' is the idea of loving others, which might be hard if you don't understand what others define as 'love'.

I'm glad you do not follow your religion to the letter. You appear to use it as more of a foundation to establish your own views and principles, which I find is a growing trend with many religious people today. All I'm concerned about is the truth claims, and from everything you speak of: love, peace, unity, compassion; all these things are wonderful to fight for, but I do not see where religion meets with these ideals, or that the belief of a god is necessary to beget these sort of interactions.

As for what I find to be fairy tales, I am referring to your particular interpretation of your holy-book. Every interpretation is interesting in its' own right, but there isn't one ounce of demonstrable truth that flows from it so it naturally appears to me to be but simple fiction. Truth is objective, measurable reality, and religion has demonstrated to be a poseur of truth. It's a fairy tale to me simply because none of it seems real. What I'm asking for is how and why you believe these stories are not fictional.

Why would living forever be boring? Wouldn't the afterlife would be different from Earth? I think we're meant to witness the frailty of our physical bodies in order to better learn how to serve others before ourselves. Your description was quite beautiful, and I do think the world revolves around destruction and rebirth, but there are and always will be constants: math, for example. I know that doesn't really prove anything, but I did want to show that part of your explanation is also compatible with others'.

In relation to other topics in the thread, you might find this interesting if you haven't seen it already.

Ah yes, I have seen that link. Good stuff. Love Cracked for mixing humor with education.

This is the pool I was originally going to dip into, but the response is rather extensive so I decided to summarize with my first post. Generally speaking, any traditional idea of Heaven is unappealing to me, however if you do have an alternative interpretation of what Heaven is like, I'd be interested in hearing it.

So what would Heaven be like? Being with God and...have all kinds of good things. That's pretty much the description I have received. Of course, there are a few more descriptors than that. It's often described as the perfect place where there is no pain or anguish and everything is good under the light of God. However, anguish and pain are interwoven with human nature, and I will assert that it is impossible not to experience some level of anguish within the time-frame of eternity. Let me provide a good example:

Let's say a mother and father are in a tragic car accident that claims both their lives. Their child is alive and well, and grows up with a foster family. The mother and father, good christian people, are in heaven and awaiting to finally see their child when he passes on to the other side. The child, due to his experiences, turns away from God and becomes an atheist. He dies and goes to hell. Now, can you really tell me that the mother and father would ever be happy with that series of events? Their child, being tortured endlessly for eternity (or stuck in a shameful state-of-mind). Imagine how they must plead to God for mercy and receive cold callousness in return. In this respect, they must suffer for eternity and Heaven itself is a hell. It's impossible to retain human nature--that which makes you you--and not suffer in some form or another. Relationships and love beget pain and loss and this is an inevitable process that cannot be rectified.

There is the other, more horrifying version, where we are essentially stripped from our nature and put under a sort of happy-haze. We are in a magical realm where we are in a perpetual, blissful stupor. Does that sound appealing? Maybe so, but are you even you anymore? I would assert not. There is also a problem with this in terms of free-will, this supposed gift that God has bestowed upon us to liberate itself from all responsibility. The entire point of free-will is moot if by the time you reach your eternal existence, it is all stripped away. What kind of system is that?

I could not imagine the horror of being able to watch with Jesus as my loved-ones suffer in hell with a grin on my face.

Now, is this just saying the general arguments like "Because the Bible tells me so" is just dumb, or are you including the existence of a god period? Felt like I should ask, regardless of how the question was worded.

Here is how I believe we rationally assess reality. Using the scientific method as the basic foundation, we create a hypothesis and put it under experimentation, observation, and see if the results are consistently repeatable, and then with all the data we establish we draw a conclusion. These are the basic building-blocks of a rational, progressive exploration of demonstrable truth.

Religious arguments tend to work backwards. They draw a conclusion (God exists), and then try to form a hypothesis that supports it. It's asinine and an ineffective way to discover the truth. Any religious argument that follows this backwards methodology is what I am referring to when I talk about "dumb arguments".

I'm curious as to why you hope there's a stronger reason for my beliefs. Do you have very strong emotional attachment to yours? If there is any emotional appeal to my belief, it's in the actual backstory to why I ended up choosing/keeping this particular belief. Getting to that now.

I believe you may misunderstand me. I do not seek an emotionally-charged reason for your beliefs, and in fact search for the contrary. Religion is a very interesting and important topic to me, but I never feel particularly emotionally attached to it, especially since I don't know why I'd have emotional appeal to a non-belief anyway (aside from the fact that every god I have studied is immoral in my viewpoint).

Well let me know if the story reveals anything for you.


My mother is a traditional Christian and my father is.....well...I don't know what he is, but I'm assuming Atheist/Agnostic. I believed without a single doubt that God existed and everyone believed in him. (I also believed in Santa Clause. Mind blown when that lid was kicked) You could say my life was littered around circumstances/luck/blessings (take your pick, everyone!) in which I avoided what should have been some fatal blows in my life. This includes but limited to: Car crashes, near-car-hits, father somehow knowing to grab me and pull me back into my seat before I flew off a certain ride that was no doubt very high up (details are foggy in that situation), hopeless financial situations near-suddenly being resolved (I hope you can forgive if I skim out on the details. It isn't just my story to tell), my honest ( and admittingly more to the faith) sister giving me stories that I'd otherwise call bull if not for her honesty record, to the awesomeness of tornado warnings suddenly dissipating...every year, for years.

I'm also taking into account of the legitimate people who have "testaments" out there on how "awesome God is" and how he has lifted people out of thick spots from an emotional, financial, or physical approach. Ones that involve "surviving the implausible". ....You also can't be trying to sell a book. (See: "23 Minutes in Hell". He had a lot to talk about, and a lot~ of money to make...) I personally was not there for their experiences, but I was never great at calling things I haven't experienced myself a giant universal placebo.

I just needed to separate this section from the rest of the story, because I think you hit the nail on the head, only I believe I am perfectly within reason to claim that it is a giant universal placebo, and you need look no further than the fact that prayer can have tangible benefits while simultaneously doing absolute zilch. When you are praying or know you are being prayed for, there have been documented cases that show a benefit in aiding recovery, but it's simply an effect of one's own brain, because as soon as they are being prayed for and are unaware; there is no change. It's old-news that religion and prayer feels good to some people, but I think that it is something we've been raised to accept and is not something that we as an advancing, civilized society require anymore. As a former believer, I will freely admit that believing in a loving god is pleasant and that living forever is fine and dandy, but as I studied and gained more knowledge, I feel more enlightened and even happier than I was before, because now I realize the actual implications of a monotheistic mindset.

After Life Information: I'd actually be curious to see/know if this had been debunked over the years. Putting aside all of the more cracky documentaries. (Should I lump in the History Channel as well?), there *has* been a lot of people who have admitted to seeing and knowing the happenings of things around them when they were dead or near-death. (Unless of course, you are very much still alive with a heart protesting its job.) This also includes my grandmother, who says her heart stopped and was able to see what was going on with her on the operation table. There's no bright light story on my end, but I'm going to safely assume not everyone who has had similar experiences are insane. I really, really want science to thoroughly dig into that aspect of life. It could prove soooooo beneficial....for me.

As you can tell, my beliefs all stem from other people's experiences, as I am far more willing to say that my own personal experiences may just be a long chain of circumstances. And as I've mentioned before, I do not like how God runs the Earth or, if The Bible is worth a grain of truth (from a religious perspective), how he handles "sinners". So I'm very much detached in my relationship with him until he or science brings in some helpful insight on existence. Now I just need to hope that my 2 in the morning posting hasn't made this little tale a complete mess of a post.

There are tons of studies on the effects and processes of near-death experiences and "out-of-body" experiences, and while we do not have a completely solid explanation for near-death experiences yet, it is generally accepted that it is simply the result of a dying brain that is malfunctioning. Out-of-body experiences can be replicated in laboratories, and it is simply a matter of the way our brain handles our perception, and in the case of your grandmother, what she was processing most likely was not real. Was she able to properly identify things that she couldn't possibly observe from the position she was laying in? Did she see objects that were hidden behind a tray or another person that she would have no possible way of seeing?

Have you ever heard of Alice-in-Wonderland syndrome? You should look it up for it is a great example of how human perception can become so very warped, and it's another argument against any sort of "out-of-body" experience.

With AIWS, everything around you is huge because you are very tiny, but does that make you tiny? No, it does not.

With out-of-body experiences, you view things from out of your body and "see" yourself. Are you really out of your body? Arguable, but most probably not.

[AssenavxActress]

I was raised a Catholic in my family. I usually despised going to church every early Sunday morning and do the same bloody routines. However, there were some good values that the religion actually taught me back then. Be kind to others, be courteous and polite, show respect, and so many more. Plus, free donuts. Oh, how I loved the donuts.

But enough silly banter on my part. I'm not going to get thoroughly philosophical on this topic, but I will give my two cents on this most controversial topic. My mother decided to leave the church due to some rules and regulations that didn't go well with her own beliefs, and therefore, my Catholic upbringing was hindered. Even though I now consider myself an agnostic (one that thinks perhaps there is some ultimate being, but doesn't know for sure), I still hold true the values I've been taught from my earlier days. As for how I view the world, it's as simple as this: I can't say for sure if there truly is a heaven, hell or purgatory until I actually die and see for myself. I can't just make up something and expect it to come true in the end. Who knows? I might just drift in the soul current for all eternity; swaying with the wind forevermore while I look down from up above and witness the follies of men. Or, it could be something completely different and more cheerful. Who knows? Consider me a skeptic, if you will, but just firmly believing that there is truly someone watching over us, or there is true paradise once you die seems foolish. Don't get me wrong though. I will definitely not verbally smite someone for holding these beliefs if they stay true to them. That wasn't how I was raised. If they do believe, then let them. I could be wrong myself for all I know. All in all, I'll still be kind to others, won't judge them due to their different upbringings, and be the best man that I can be in this day of age. I don't expect to be rewarded in the end when I die nor do I expect to see the creator with my own eyes, but if I ever do, then I have no complaints on that.

I apologize if my remarks based on this topic seem a bit contradictory, but in conclusion, I will never know the truth until the very end of the path.

You and I should be friends. XD LOL. The donut bit cracked me up. So true. I was brought up Catholic as well by my Mother. My Dad is... something? Lutheran I think but he doesn't really go to church anymore. The only way my parents were able to marry is if my Mother brought up her children Catholic. And so they were married. My Dad tried to become Catholic but he just couldn't go through with it. So many conflicting beliefs I guess. My Dad told me that once I turned 18 (wayyy past that now) I could choose to be whatever I wanted to be. As long as I wasn't into anything bad.

As for my stance... I don't really know. I still go to church on occasion but I am not sure of things. I adore many religions and I'd like to learn more about the world as I get older. I don't think there is ONE true religion. I believe God made all of us to have different beliefs. As long as you are a decent person I don't see any problem with worshipping a different God or many Gods. I don't judge and I love to hear about peoples' religious views. I don't have many friends who like to talk about religion since it's a touchy subject. But I do like a good, intelligent, conversation now and then. ;D

[ProjectTrinity]

Atheists or unconventional believers: How many of you are closeted?

Not closeted. ^_^

Anyone who asks, receives the information, and I have absolutely no reason to hide my beliefs. Yes, my "God is a troll" mindset makes my family at unease, and I don't exactly force them to see things my way, but they're all very accepting and understanding of why I view things the way I do. I'm actually in heavier battles with fellow believers than I am unbelievers and the reason is pretty well laced within my posts here. Luckily, I am someone who is very pushy to learn of the truths hidden in this world, so I'm almost always ready for a non-cliche or batty refutation.

Here is how I believe we rationally assess reality. Using the scientific method as the basic foundation, we create a hypothesis and put it under experimentation, observation, and see if the results is consistently repeatable, and then with all the data we establish we draw a conclusion. These are the basic building-blocks of a rational, progressive exploration of demonstrable truth.

Religious arguments tend to work backwards. They draw a conclusion (God exists), and then try to form a hypothesis that supports it. It's asinine and an ineffective way to discover the truth. Any religious argument that follows this backwards methodology is what I am referring to when I talk about "dumb arguments".

The scientific method? Well doesn't that open up something interesting~:

"If Mystery Science Stuff That We Can't Even Begin To Identify With Created the universe, then _____?"

As of now, how would we test this, test it repeatedly, draw a conclusion, and thus gain the truth? What hypothetical steps can we take to get the tools/equipment necessary to go about discovering the ultimate truth, or more amusingly, the ultimate hypothesis? I want to hear what hypothesis you come up with to get us to an actual hypothesis on how the mystery science stuff defies the scientific law ("energy cannot be created or destroyed"), creates it's own laws (such as creating universes from its own mystery science stuff that once again - defies the law of conservation of energy), and then makes the universe follow a unique set of laws that is different from its own laws.

I assure you this is way less snark and more of true curiosity here, but right now, to me, if you have a solid answer for this, you'd be supplying this writer some mighty fine plot material, and actual insight to my own beliefs/truths, so please do share? Of course, if you don't, then the scientific method we're using here just as well apply to the great Spaghetti God Monster as well. Naturally, I'm no pro in the fields of science, so I may be wrong about my interpretation of the laws of energy, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. No Atheist (especially the pushy ones) have ever come close to answering this for me without starting to circle around a point I had already promptly addressed, so if you do this, you'll be very, very specials.

I believe you may misunderstand me. I do not seek an emotionally-charged reason for your beliefs, and in fact search for the contrary. Religion is a very interesting and important topic to me, but I never feel particularly emotionally attached to it, especially since I don't know why I'd have emotional appeal to a non-belief anyway (aside from the fact that every god I have studied is immoral in my viewpoint).

So are you more of asking me why I'm detached to my own religion-ish? Well, you put the answer down quite nicely. He's a bit too questionable in the moral department for my taste. And he doesn't feel the need to answer diddily poo about it. 6_6

I just needed to separate this section from the rest of the story, because I think you hit the nail on the head, only I believe I am perfectly within reason to claim that it is a giant universal placebo, and you need look no further than the fact that prayer can have tangible benefits while simultaneously doing absolute zilch. When you are praying or know you are being prayed for, there have been documented cases that show a benefit in aiding recovery, but it's simply an effect of one's own brain, because as soon as they are being prayed for and are unaware; there is no change. It's old-news that religion and prayer feels good to some people, but I think that it is something we've been raised to accept and is not something that we as an advancing, civilized society require anymore. As a former believer, I will freely admit that believing in a loving god is pleasant and that living forever is fine and dandy, but as I studied and gained more knowledge, I feel more enlightened and even happier than I was before, because now I realize the actual implications of a monotheistic mindset.

Different paths (entirely), but I believe the endgame is the same on prayers: I do not think they work anymore past them being placebos. I was going to clarify that I wasn't simply talking prayer, but I believe you accidentally covered it anyways.

There are tons of studies on the effects and processes of near-death experiences and "out-of-body" experiences, and while we do not have a completely solid explanation for near-death experiences yet, it is generally accepted that it is simply the result of a dying brain that is malfunctioning. Out-of-body experiences can be replicated in laboratories, and it is simply a matter of the way our brain handles our perception, and in the case of your grandmother, what she was processing most likely was not real. Was she able to properly identify things that she couldn't possibly observe from the position she was laying in? Did she see objects that were hidden behind a tray or another person that she would have no possible way of seeing?

Have you ever heard of Alice-in-Wonderland syndrome? You should look it up for it is a great example of how human perception can become so very warped, and it's another argument against any sort of "out-of-body" experience.

With AIWS, everything around you is huge because you are very tiny, but does that make you tiny? No, it does not.

With out-of-body experiences, you view things from out of your body and "see" yourself. Are you really out of your body? Arguable, but most probably not.

My grandmother is a scary lady. You'll have to forgive me when I say I don't know and don't really want to ask. Besides, being honest with myself, I doubt I'd be able to fully believe her if she told me she saw things that she simply couldn't awake for reasons outside of cold logic. So more or less, I'd be willing to take your word on it.

Also:

I could not imagine the horror of being able to watch with Jesus as my loved-ones suffer in hell with a grin on my face.

This this this this this. Not sure if there would be italicized grinning, but there are sooooo many questions I have regarding Hell it's not even fair. How would that even *work* for a religious mother to see her son or daughter tormented? It isn't simply punishment, that's AAA/State of the art/Nothing Worse/It's *not* better than Heaven torture. And if the Bible is as accurate as I think it is (I do think it's more accurate than some believers want it to be), then a *lot* of good people are in for this sort of thing just because they were born to question.

[BrioCyrain]

I'd love to know your experiences. Looking forward to a PM!

You are asserting that you don't believe you'll go to hell for it. Putting your own morality and viewpoints on the religion you follow, even if it seems minor to you...my question is, do you think your god cares about your rationalizations? I am wondering why you think it's OK when it's quite obvious that it is not alright with your peers.

In addition, I find it rather odd that they abolish violent media when their holy-book contains grotesque stories of equal or superior levels of offense.

God cares about all of us, and he wants the best for all of us.

But our church also teaches the principle of Free Agency, where God cannot force us to do anything.

That's why there is so much wrong in the world, because people are allowed to do anything they want...and if they sin too much or too severe they will not be able to live an afterlife in the presence of a more perfect paradise-like world. Basically by playing these games I can get it to where I am not "happy" anymore...and the fact that hell is pretty much the embodiment of afterlife unhappiness....basically it's like god saying "If you don't mind being unhappy here...here's a place just like it".

I'm not saying he would actually say that, but Violent or Grotesque media can be depressing in large forms...which is why we are taught in our religion to find stuff that is morally and emotionally uplighting so we can feel good about ourselves and maintain a sense of happiness.

[RYTEDR]

The scientific method? Well doesn't that open up something interesting~:

"If Mystery Science Stuff That We Can't Even Begin To Identify With Created the universe, then _____?"

As of now, how would we test this, test it repeatedly, draw a conclusion, and thus gain the truth? What hypothetical steps can we take to get the tools/equipment necessary to go about discovering the ultimate truth, or more amusingly, the ultimate hypothesis? I want to hear what hypothesis you come up with to get us to an actual hypothesis on how the mystery science stuff defies the scientific law ("energy cannot be created or destroyed"), creates it's own laws (such as creating universes from its own mystery science stuff that once again - defies the law of conservation of energy), and then makes the universe follow a unique set of laws that is different from its own laws.

I assure you this is way less snark and more of true curiosity here, but right now, to me, if you have a solid answer for this, you'd be supplying this writer some mighty fine plot material, and actual insight to my own beliefs/truths, so please do share? Of course, if you don't, then the scientific method we're using here just as well apply to the great Spaghetti God Monster as well. Naturally, I'm no pro in the fields of science, so I may be wrong about my interpretation of the laws of energy, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. No Atheist (especially the pushy ones) have ever come close to answering this for me without starting to circle around a point I had already promptly addressed, so if you do this, you'll be very, very specials

Originally I was going to respond with the frustratingly unsatisfying "We are not sure yet." However, I will attempt to speculate as much as you require, although I am afraid to say that our fundamental understanding of these questions may never be within the realm of absolute certainty or even verifiable. Of course, I must note that I am certainly not a physicist, so if anything that I say is inaccurate or misunderstood, then please feel free to correct me. Because of this, I am going to try to remain as general and simple as possible and shy away from the technicalities as much as I can, as I am not going to discuss something that I cannot represent properly. Now, let's begin.

Attaining the key to the "ultimate hypothesis" (which I assume entails the ultimate Theory of Everything), at this moment, is all in a matter of baby-steps. Some of our strongest telescopes are able to detect light from around 11.1 billion light years away, allowing us to take a muddled glimpse at the state of the infant universe a mere 2.6 billion years after the Big Bang. We are constantly observing and calculating and attempting to understand everything that we can see and it's a tremendous ongoing process. However, with each passing day, we fine-tune and bring small pieces of the puzzle together, and we are just scratching the surface of the things that we do know, but we are working on it daily.

Remember, as small and insignificant human-beings on one random planet in one insignificant galaxy, we must remain humble in our pursuit for knowledge and truth. In astronomical terms, we are at a huge pinnacle in understanding the universe we inhabit. In the past 100 years, we have uncovered the existence of galaxies, the chemistry of stars, the evolution of stars, the expansion of the universe, the existence of extra-solar planets, the nature of the surfaces of the planets in the solar system, and the universe through the various electromagnetic windows from gamma rays to radio waves. All of these fundamental components of the universe that we have just discovered within the time-frame of one human lifetime with our 200,000 years of human history. There is so much that we need to and may discover about the universe that could change our understanding of it forever. That's what science entails. It is constantly reformed and redefined as we gain new information and understanding, and the understanding we may have 200 years from now may be completely alien to us presently.

Take dark matter, for example. We barely understand the nature of dark matter at all, and we are not even sure what dark matter is. However, dark matter is said to comprise 96% of our visible universe, so if you consider that through all our limited understanding and knowledge of reality that is within the other 4% of everything (which, of course, we cannot claim to know even close to everything within that 4%), there is an overwhelmingly large portion of reality we are unable to understand at this time. We are like neanderthals looking up at the stars.

There are theoretical particles and forces that have evaded us that need to either be proven to exist or we discover something else to explain the various phenomena and anomalies within our various astronomical models. Our knowledge of the universe is like swiss cheese; it has holes. As I stated before, it is a constant, ongoing process that we will be refining for years to come. The Large Hadron Collider, for example, is intended to do just that. In fact, just yesterday there was an article released that the LHC discovered an entirely new particle Chi-b (3p). This is an entirely new element in the universe we just uncovered. Now obviously, I haven't a clue what this entails or to the significance of this discovery, but the principle still holds that we must work up to that knowledge, which we simply do not possess and may, unfortunately, never possess.

The Big Bang Theory, for example, does not address the absolute origin of the universe (a common misconception), but merely its' development over time. There are several ToE's (Theories of Everything) under investigation, including the popular superstring-theory and the extending M-theory. While these theories are in their developing stages, they are and already have made testable and falsifiable predictions. However, we are not at a stage of development advanced enough to make many experiments on these theories.

Going back to how the Law of Conservation of Energy is broken by "mystery science stuff", that is simply something that can be addressed in many, many ways. First of all, the law only applies to an isolated system, which we cannot verify the universe is. Secondly, there is debate as to whether the law is already being broken or not, due to the vacuum fluctuations that have been documented to bring "stuff out of nothing and then disappear into nothing". Again, since the Big Bang does not address the absolute origin of the universe, I unfortunately do not have much to say about this (partly because I believe blind speculating is a waste of time and mostly because I lack the proper knowledge of these subjects to discuss them in detail). We have to keep in mind that the Big Bang is the expansion of time, matter, and space. It is entirely possible that the laws of our current universe did not apply or simply did not exist prior to the Big Bang.

Bottom line is, it doesn't necessarily matter to me what answers we have yet to possess. What matters to me is not asserting knowledge or believing anything without significant justification. I realize that this long-winded and perhaps somewhat dodgy response may not have answered any questions for you, but I'm afraid that the cold reality is really that simple; "We are not sure yet."

My grandmother is a scary lady. You'll have to forgive me when I say I don't know and don't really want to ask. Besides, being honest with myself, I doubt I'd be able to fully believe her if she told me she saw things that she simply couldn't awake for reasons outside of cold logic. So more or less, I'd be willing to take your word on it.

Understandable, and I'm sure your grandmother would be quick to offend if you were to critically analyse her "magical experience." People are trained to hold on to their perception as if it is infallible, and tend to quite viciously reject the idea that they could be mistaken or experiencing hallucinations (or they will quite humorously claim "I know I can be wrong, but I know I'm not with this!!!!!!"). This is an issue for me, because I think that if I were to have an experience similar to that your grandmother, the very first thing I would do is think I'm having a delusion and get myself a psyche-eval, but I suppose that's just the skeptic in me.

This this this this this. Not sure if there would be italicized grinning, but there are sooooo many questions I have regarding Hell it's not even fair. How would that even *work* for a religious mother to see her son or daughter tormented? It isn't simply punishment, that's AAA/State of the art/Nothing Worse/It's *not* better than Heaven torture. And if the Bible is as accurate as I think it is (I do think it's more accurate than some believers want it to be), then a *lot* of good people are in for this sort of thing just because they were born to question.

Exactly. Even if the god of the Bible existed, there is no way I could worship him. The god of the Bible is a sadistic, malevolent, jealous, vengeful bully and for those who actually read the Bible, a generally bad ruler of the universe. Seriously, most of the stories in the Bible are chronicles of God's failures and his failed attempts to reconcile his failures, resulting in even more failures. If this book was not so influential to the masses, you could almost look at this at a comedic standpoint.

God cares about all of us, and he wants the best for all of us.

But our church also teaches the principle of Free Agency, where God cannot force us to do anything.

That's why there is so much wrong in the world, because people are allowed to do anything they want...and if they sin too much or too severe they will not be able to live an afterlife in the presence of a more perfect paradise-like world. Basically by playing these games I can get it to where I am not "happy" anymore...and the fact that hell is pretty much the embodiment of afterlife unhappiness....basically it's like god saying "If you don't mind being unhappy here...here's a place just like it".

I'm not saying he would actually say that, but Violent or Grotesque media can be depressing in large forms...which is why we are taught in our religion to find stuff that is morally and emotionally uplighting so we can feel good about ourselves and maintain a sense of happiness.

I realize that you probably did not intend for this, but you essentially have just said here that your god will send you to hell for being unhappy. I truly hope you do not mean this, because I could not imagine the horror of living under that form of theology.

Personally, I do not get depressed when I'm slaughtering little digital people in a video-game. That's pretty absurd. If I was getting depressed, why would I continue doing that or even continue playing the game? Your actions within video games or the movies you watch do not coincide with reality, and any reasonable person knows this. This is the same with artwork, the written word, and simple folk-lore. Fantasy and reality are separated for that very simple, fundamental reason. It's when someone crosses fantasy with reality is where things go askew, but someone who is that incapable of deciphering the difference between the two was probably going to end up committing wrong anyway.

In my opinion, if your god wanted the best for us, he would not send people to suffer eternally for finite crimes, in ANY respect. He especially would not make you suffer simply because media depresses you. It's simply asinine.

[BrioCyrain]

Originally I was going to respond with the frustratingly unsatisfying "We are not sure yet." However, I will attempt to speculate as much as you require, although I am afraid to say that our fundamental understanding of these questions may never be within the realm of absolute certainty or even verifiable. Of course, I must note that I am certainly not a physicist, so if anything that I say is inaccurate or misunderstood, then please feel free to correct me. Because of this, I am going to try to remain as general and simple as possible and shy away from the technicalities as much as I can, as I am not going to discuss something that I cannot represent properly. Now, let's begin.

Attaining the key to the "ultimate hypothesis" (which I assume entails the ultimate Theory of Everything), at this moment, is all in a matter of baby-steps. Some of our strongest telescopes are able to detect light from around 11.1 billion light years away, allowing us to take a muddled glimpse at the state of the infant universe a mere 2.6 billion years after the Big Bang. We are constantly observing and calculating and attempting to understand everything that we can see and it's a tremendous ongoing process. However, with each passing day, we fine-tune and bring small pieces of the puzzle together, and we are just scratching the surface of the things that we do know, but we are working on it daily.

Remember, as small and insignificant human-beings on one random planet in one insignificant galaxy, we must remain humble in our pursuit for knowledge and truth. In astronomical terms, we are at a huge pinnacle in understanding the universe we inhabit. In the past 100 years, we have uncovered the existence of galaxies, the chemistry of stars, the evolution of stars, the expansion of the universe, the existence of extra-solar planets, the nature of the surfaces of the planets in the solar system, and the universe through the various electromagnetic windows from gamma rays to radio waves. All of these fundamental components of the universe that we have just discovered within the time-frame of one human lifetime with our 200,000 years of human history. There is so much that we need to and may discover about the universe that could change our understanding of it forever. That's what science entails. It is constantly reformed and redefined as we gain new information and understanding, and the understanding we may have 200 years from now may be completely alien to us presently.

Take dark matter, for example. We barely understand the nature of dark matter at all, and we are not even sure what dark matter is. However, dark matter is said to comprise 96% of our visible universe, so if you consider that through all our limited understanding and knowledge of reality that is within the other 4% of everything (which, of course, we cannot claim to know even close to everything within that 4%), there is an overwhelmingly large portion of reality we are unable to understand at this time. We are like neanderthals looking up at the stars.

There are theoretical particles and forces that have evaded us that need to either be proven to exist or we discover something else to explain the various phenomena and anomalies within our various astronomical models. Our knowledge of the universe is like swiss cheese; it has holes. As I stated before, it is a constant, ongoing process that we will be refining for years to come. The Large Hadron Collider, for example, is intended to do just that. In fact, just yesterday there was an article released that the LHC discovered an entirely new particle Chi-b (3p). This is an entirely new element in the universe we just uncovered. Now obviously, I haven't a clue what this entails or to the significance of this discovery, but the principle still holds that we must work up to that knowledge, which we simply do not possess and may, unfortunately, never possess.

The Big Bang Theory, for example, does not address the absolute origin of the universe (a common misconception), but merely its' development over time. There are several ToE's (Theories of Everything) under investigation, including the popular superstring-theory and the extending M-theory. While these theories are in their developing stages, they are and already have made testable and falsifiable predictions. However, we are not at a stage of development advanced enough to make many experiments on these theories.

Going back to how the Law of Conservation of Energy is broken by "mystery science stuff", that is simply something that can be addressed in many, many ways. First of all, the law only applies to an isolated system, which we cannot verify the universe is. Secondly, there is debate as to whether the law is already being broken or not, due to the vacuum fluctuations that have been documented to bring "stuff out of nothing and then disappear into nothing". Again, since the Big Bang does not address the absolute origin of the universe, I unfortunately do not have much to say about this (partly because I believe blind speculating is a waste of time and mostly because I lack the proper knowledge of these subjects to discuss them in detail). We have to keep in mind that the Big Bang is the expansion of time, matter, and space. It is entirely possible that the laws of our current universe did not apply or simply did not exist prior to the Big Bang.

Bottom line is, it doesn't necessarily matter to me what answers we have yet to possess. What matters to me is not asserting knowledge or believing anything without significant justification. I realize that this long-winded and perhaps somewhat dodgy response may not have answered any questions for you, but I'm afraid that the cold reality is really that simple; "We are not sure yet."





Understandable, and I'm sure your grandmother would be quick to offend if you were to critically analyse her "magical experience." People are trained to hold on to their perception as if it is infallible, and tend to quite viciously reject the idea that they could be mistaken or experiencing hallucinations (or they will quite humorously claim "I know I can be wrong, but I know I'm not with this!!!!!!"). This is an issue for me, because I think that if I were to have an experience similar to that your grandmother, the very first thing I would do is think I'm having a delusion and get myself a psyche-eval, but I suppose that's just the skeptic in me.






Exactly. Even if the god of the Bible existed, there is no way I could worship him. The god of the Bible is a sadistic, malevolent, jealous, vengeful bully and for those who actually read the Bible, a generally bad ruler of the universe. Seriously, most of the stories in the Bible are chronicles of God's failures and his failed attempts to reconcile his failures, resulting in even more failures. If this book was not so influential to the masses, you could almost look at this at a comedic standpoint.



I realize that you probably did not intend for this, but you essentially have just said here that your god will send you to hell for being unhappy. I truly hope you do not mean this, because I could not imagine the horror of living under that form of theology.

Personally, I do not get depressed when I'm slaughtering little digital people in a video-game. That's pretty absurd. If I was getting depressed, why would I continue doing that or even continue playing the game? Your actions within video games or the movies you watch do not coincide with reality, and any reasonable person knows this. This is the same with artwork, the written word, and simple folk-lore. Fantasy and reality are separated for that very simple, fundamental reason. It's when someone crosses fantasy with reality is where things go askew, but someone who is that incapable of deciphering the difference between the two was probably going to end up committing wrong anyway.

In my opinion, if your god wanted the best for us, he would not send people to suffer eternally for finite crimes, in ANY respect. He especially would not make you suffer simply because media depresses you. It's simply asinine.

I guess I totally miswrote that then, because that's not what I intended at all, so much for thinking too much.

I guess my grasp of logic is like a tweeting bird chirping in a meadow, or a wreaf of pretty flowers that smell bad.

What I meant in part according to our theology in some ways says hell isn't actually a burning place that's demented, but pretty much a very lonely, depressing place that sinful people go to be pretty much eternally sad.

Somehow my description of this was miswrittten.

[RYTEDR]

I guess I totally miswrote that then, because that's not what I intended at all, so much for thinking too much.

I guess my grasp of logic is like a tweeting bird chirping in a meadow, or a wreaf of pretty flowers that smell bad.

What I meant in part according to our theology in some ways says hell isn't actually a burning place that's demented, but pretty much a very lonely, depressing place that sinful people go to be pretty much eternally sad.

Somehow my description of this was miswrittten.

It is fine. I figured that you were not accurately portraying your viewpoint, but I did need to mention it so I could get a proper idea of your position.

Notice how my last post did not assume that hell involved being burned and tortured forever. I used the broad term of suffering, which is still essentially the point of hell, is it not? Alright, so your god sends people to hell and they get to be alone and miserable forever. Am I going to enjoy that and does that make it any more moral? Take a moment and think about the mere concept of eternity and existing in it in a miserable and lonely realm.

But irrespective of the nature of hell, the mere fact that under your theology, your god rewards those who believe based on faith, which by definition is belief without evidence, and punishes those who require more than that, is a testament to how immoral the god really is. To call that love and caring is an insult to basic human compassion. Could you ever lock someone you love up in the cellar and never let them free simply because they view violent media? Can you really tell me that this is a moral system and it's something we should revere as holy?

[Owminator]

Religion. Yes.

Let's go two-thousand years back in time. The world... was F**KED UP man. I mean, it still is today, but in all honesty, two-thousand years ago, most of the world was just a barbaric, dangerous place to live. If God really existed, he would probably have repeated Noah's flood at this time, but I think that SOMEONE smart, somewhere in the Middle East decided to say "Fuck it. Let's fix the world". And so he wrote a book that completely changed the moral ideas people were used to and presented it to the authorities, who then proceeded to use force and trickery to implement it into their society. Of course, at this time, homosexuality and disrespect towards your parents was morally F**KED UP. To them. And so the Bible was born, and it contained lot's of moral ideas, some accepted today, some condemned as F**KED UP man, and God saw that it was good.

And, for some reason, these religious ideas spread all around the globe, and a big part of the earths population still believes a lot of it to this day. As to why, it is somewhat unclear to me, maybe it's hope that you will go to heaven and that everyone who doesn't think just like you will burn forever, maybe it's God, acting as a protector, maybe it is that you will see your parents and grandparents again, and live an eternally happy life with them, maybe it's something entirely different.

I am an atheist who seeks to make society aware of how some religious people are seriously F**KED UP man, but then again, I have the utmost respect for someone who has Faith in God, but doesn't let it affect their moral values. In other words, if you think God exists and believe you will live happily ever after when you pass, fine with me, if you think the Bible grants you permission to stone gays and children who cursed their parents, I will happily tell you to go fuck yourself and wish you a happier, broader life in the future.

[RYTEDR]

I am an atheist who seeks to make society aware of how some religious people are seriously F**KED UP man, but then again, I have the utmost respect for someone who has Faith in God, but doesn't let it affect their moral values. In other words, if you think God exists and believe you will live happily ever after when you pass, fine with me, if you think the Bible grants you permission to stone gays and children who cursed their parents, I will happily tell you to go fuck yourself and wish you a happier, broader life in the future.

That is a good point that you raised that I feel requires some level of emphasis. I believe that many atheists--including myself--feel this way. We will completely accept the fact that you can believe what you want to believe, and while we may wish you would reevaluate your beliefs and perhaps increase your standards of evidence, we will treat you just as equally as anyone else. It is the people who try to enforce their own religious ideals into our society and into our government, and when they try to enact laws and policies in accordance to their own personal, unverifiable beliefs. Those are the individuals that I feel are the most destructive and the most unjustified in their actions and should not be allowed to influence the rest of society with their religious propaganda.

Regarding your statement about the Bible granting permission to commit so many horrible acts, there is a great deal of relief I feel when I am able to say that practically every theist I've ever spoken to rejects the morality portrayed in their own holy-book, whether or not they choose to admit to that fact. They only quote from the book when it already coincides with their own sense of morality, and then ignore everything that does not.

[Frozen Death Knight]

I am an atheist and I see no value in religion whatsoever. It's an illogical mess when you try to read it up (i.e. the Bible) and people pretty much believe whatever the crap they want and then often desire to force their religious ideas down everyone else's throaths, whether they share a belief in a god or not.

Can I 100% prove there is no god? No, but can anyone truly prove there is one, either? Every time I have heard someone try to prove the existence of their particular god, it has failed miserably. Why not just say, "I don't know." and then work on finding out proper ways to learn more about our existence through for instance science? We get nowhere with these arguments until some actual evidence is presented.