Discussions

As a species we are so big on ourselves, not only in religion but even in some of the ideas presented by science, the importance of man is sometimes taken to the extreme. Reading some of the ideas about multiple universes is somewhat like religion, where there may be a parallel universe where there may be another being like us right now, or the idea that there's a universe where instead of going right we went left and are living a completely different life because of it.  
 
One thing I am glad about is that maybe science has finally opened it's mind in regards to more than just this universe. I'm not sure how many dimensions there are but I have always looked at things as an object (length width depth) occupying a place at a specific time relative to it's surrounding, should this not apply to our universe as well.  
 
So what does this have to do with religion or God, if we are going to believe in multiple universes, it is only on an idea that they exist since we cannot see beyond what we can see.  
 
Edited by don brown, 2015-06-12 07:34:30

don brown said "As a species we are so big on ourselves, not only in religion but even in some of the ideas presented by science, the importance of man is sometimes taken to the extreme. Reading some of the ideas about multiple universes is somewhat like religion, where there may be a parallel universe where there may be another being like us right now, or the idea that there's a universe where instead of going right we went left and are living a completely different life because of it.     One thing I am glad about is that maybe science has finally opened it's mind in regards to more than just this universe. I'm not sure how many dimensions there are but I have always looked at things as an object (length width depth) occupying a place at a specific time relative to it's surrounding, should this not apply to our universe as well.     So what does this have to do with religion or God, if we are going to believe in multiple universes, it is only on an idea that they exist since we cannot see beyond what we can see.     Edited by don brown, 2015-06-12 07:34:30"

Good points.  
 
On the vanity point. I can't tell you, Don, how many times i've had discussions with religious people and been told how arrogant I am and that I should humble myself because I dare question religion.  
 
Me, a person who thinks that I'm insignificant in the universe, that I'm here only for a tiny spec of time in relation to everything that was and is going to be. And that I should make as good of use of this time as I can by learning as much as I can and leaving the world better, however slightly, when I go.  
 
Yeah, I'm arrogant, but the christian, who thinks the universe was created soley for them, by a god who loves only them,think they have a special social license (as evidenced by how many people preface everything they say with "as a christian") and when they die they'll live forever with him. They're humble. Okay.  
 
Edited by Torque, 2015-06-12 07:53:39

leeway said "It only makes sense to not fall for the post. Who else would be so bored or angry to make a post out of the blue on a site known for complaining, to call down our God. Obviously it was made to stir up an argument so what??? They can sit back and judge how all the Christians reacted? We know the truth..... And one day they will too. In the meantime we can pray for them have a good day all! "

There is no historical proof Jesus existed except the bible which was written and re-written to suit the writers' views. Believers will say there is evidence but there is none. Modern human brain size has been the same for 10,000 years and I'm sure they thought about their existence and how it came to be as well as we do. They saw things over the eons that they didn't understand and a supernatural being was the only answer. Most strange occurunces like solar and lunar eclipses, meteors, stars, storms with lightning,rainbows and more came from looking upward therefore there must be some body up there running things. You could add terrestrial happenings like earthquakes and floods and any other calamity you could think of. Also our dreams where you see dead people and experience weird happenings would seem real to our ancestors and definitely unexplainable. All these ancient legends came from a modern size brain which could not come up with a explanation except a super natural being running things. It's time people realize that time and science are proving the ancient religious texts are a bunch of poppycock. Religion and fear of god and hell has kept people in bondage for thousands of years and it's time stop.

Rue said "or whatever you beloeve in I have a real hard time believing in anything when all kinds of crazy things go on war ,murder ,rape molesting I could go on on if there is a so called higher power to make things great where is it ? On vaction "

I had started off in that category of disbelief to, back in my early teen years. A rough year in freshman high school life combined with becoming more observant of world events caused me to remove what shred of "belief" that I once did hold.  
First out of anger ("How could "God" let this happen to me?!"), then observation ("how could "God" let all this happen to people?!"), then acceptance ("There must not be anything there"). This was a few months before I learned the term behind that frame of mind (Atheist).  
 
Since I have gone though many different changes in mindset in regards to the topic. I used to go with "Agnostic Atheist", as is the most popular. Then I dropped in favor of "Agnostic", since it seemed a more straight forward way of saying "I don't know".  
 
Which resulted in a lot of atheist resistance (citing misuse of the word), which is why I settle for "ambiguous" at the moment.  
 
I have never equated religion with "God". One can be dismissed fairly easily, the other is one of mans eternal enigmas, and may remain as such.  
The question of what is or is not there is not affecting anyone, but the problems of todays world are. As such, IMO one should concern themselves more with those, then engaging in this ongoing non-winnable "debate".  
 
Just my 2 cents however.

The one thing I do agree with the fundamentals on is if genesis isn't true the whole bible is a lie.This has driven them to create their own version of science, creation science and disprove all the current theory's in modern science,on how the world came into being and evolution age of the earth ,so far not one theory has been disproven they have many hypothesis but they haven't disproved anything the best they can do is to deny these theory's are real science,You have many of these clowns roaming the country like dr dino Kent Hovind and his son claiming to disprove evolution but they havnt they would have won the nobel peace prize and be touring universities being paid to give lectures on their theories but instead they are touring back water churches peddling their DVDs

Nordberg said "    rum said "    Nordberg said "Paper doesn't have to exist in the universe, but we know it does because we have evidence of it.     My evidence of paper? There's at least 15 pounds of it sitting directly in front of me in different forms.     Your paper argument is specious because it is a bad metaphor, and an apparent attempt at a red herring.     In your view of the universe, God has to exist because he created it. However, the actual physical evidence and laws don't require the construct that you call God. God in this case is a useless construct when brought into reality.     The universe that actually exists does not require paper or God to exist. The fact that paper exists is just a side product of the natural forces at play on this particular planet. We know paper exists because it has measurable physical properties which we can see, touch, and most importantly... measure.     God on the other hand we cannot see, we cannot touch, but most importantly, we cannot measure in any way shape or form.     Edited by Nordberg, 2015-06-11 23:39:17" "God on the other hand we cannot see, we cannot touch, but most importantly, we cannot measure in any way shape or form."     Which must mean you can not confidently say does not exist. Based on How you defined God you can't prove he doesn't exist.     I used the paper argument because we both know it exists. We also know The world could exist without it. could I have used something else? Yes, but that one made my point.   And Yes my view of the universe is God Had to exist because he created it. I admit that. And is a lot more necessary than paper. I admit that too. " [i]If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.   But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.     If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.[/i] -[b]Bertrand Russel[/b]   "

That is a Good point Nordberg. A lot of religions do Just that. A revelation happens to just one man, and that man teaches his religion. I have a problem with that too. some examples that come to mind is Joseph smith, budda, and Mohammed. However Yehovah spoke to the whole nation of Israel at mount sinia, He spoke to multiple prophets and kings and peasants as is recorded in at least 66 different books. It is not quite the same thing.  
Also If you make that statement to me, I would not outright reject it. I would allow you to present you case as to by you believe a such a teapot exists. (you know there is quite a bit of man made space junk up there, I have my doubts one is a teapot tho ) If it is too small for a telescope than I'd definitely be interested in how you would know that. If I find the evidence to be totally unreasonable, I would reject it.  
Again, I am not trying to prove God to you.I agree 100% with asking questions and questioning what you believe in. It will do 1 of 2 things, make you stronger in your faith or make you leave it. I don't believe anyone should blindly follow some idea, but should always search for truth.  
I can't prove God to you, only God can do that. If it is really prove you are looking for, ask God to reveal it to you.  
acts 34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:  
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.  
Based on those verses I believe that God will reveal himself to anyone who does what is right or strives to do what is right, and who fears God.  
If you look at Biblical History those are also the people God revealed himself to.  

Rue said "or whatever you beloeve in I have a real hard time believing in anything when all kinds of crazy things go on war ,murder ,rape molesting I could go on on if there is a so called higher power to make things great where is it ? On vaction "

Whether people want to believe it or not we each have a higher person to look up to and ask questions, my higher powers are my Mom, my Beautiful wife, above the is The LORD.  
WE can easily say about all the killings, neglect towards the elderly, and I can go on. Life is life a hockey fight that the referee will only try to fix and de-escalate.....it doesn't happen always that way. Do the best you can, continue to believe your faith and higher power.  
We are a part of an amazing time, enjoy life to the fullest, be kind to one another and always continue to carry the faith.  

Torque said "    rum said "    Nordberg said "Paper doesn't have to exist in the universe, but we know it does because we have evidence of it.     My evidence of paper? There's at least 15 pounds of it sitting directly in front of me in different forms.     Your paper argument is specious because it is a bad metaphor, and an apparent attempt at a red herring.     In your view of the universe, God has to exist because he created it. However, the actual physical evidence and laws don't require the construct that you call God. God in this case is a useless construct when brought into reality.     The universe that actually exists does not require paper or God to exist. The fact that paper exists is just a side product of the natural forces at play on this particular planet. We know paper exists because it has measurable physical properties which we can see, touch, and most importantly... measure.     God on the other hand we cannot see, we cannot touch, but most importantly, we cannot measure in any way shape or form.     Edited by Nordberg, 2015-06-11 23:39:17" "God on the other hand we cannot see, we cannot touch, but most importantly, we cannot measure in any way shape or form."     Which must mean you can not confidently say does not exist. Based on How you defined God you can't prove he doesn't exist.     I used the paper argument because we both know it exists. We also know The world could exist without it. could I have used something else? Yes, but that one made my point.   And Yes my view of the universe is God Had to exist because he created it. I admit that. And is a lot more necessary than paper. I admit that too. " As Nordberg has eloquently pointed out by quoting Bertrand Russell, it's not up to us to disprove a god. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.     I know many atheists, and very few of them would say there is 100% no god. What they may say is (and i've seen Nordberg mention it, and he can correct me if I'm wrong)is that the god of the bible doesn't exist. That's a different idea than "no god can exist" because god as he is depicted in the bible is a self-contradictory proposition. He doesn't even make sense, nevermind the fact that he's portrayed to be a maniac with a severe phychopatic tendancies.     Also, to your point that God has to exist because he created the universe. All that serves to do is set up an infinite regress. Who created god? And if you say he's infinite then i can claim the same for the universe, It's a non-answer merry-go-round that's been used by apologists for years.     I don't care what you claim, I only care what you can prove. Observing a universe does not make necessary a universe-making god. Observing a table does not make necessary a table-making god. And because we don't understand something does not legitimize inserting a "god did it"     If all it takes to convince you that there's a god is that there's a universe and you exist in it, then that's fine. I hold nothing against you. Some of us require just a bit more.             Edited by Torque, 2015-06-12 07:25:43"

(Quote("My point That God has to exist because he created the universe.") end quote) Sir, that was not a point, that is what I'm admitting I believe. I will not use that as a point or as an argument because it Just isn't one. There are far better once than that.  
You point about a table making god makes no sense. WE both know tables are created by a creator, usually a carpenter, by That logic it would follow that the universe requires a creator for it is far more complicated and ordered than a table. Most explosions cause disorder. Is the big Bang the only one that caused order. Again I'm not trying to prove God, but You are using a bad argument sir. If you want Prove, ask God for prove.  
And sir, that is not all it takes for me to believe that. Again that is what i was admitting to believe, not based on the universe existing, sir it took a lot of studying, experiences, and weighing the evidence to get to the point I am now.  
The God of the Bible is by it's very definition infinite. If you want to argue against the God of the Bible, that argument won't work because that is the defination. Since when do you argue the universe is infinite, last I heard your theories say it was created by the Big bang. Actually I think your theory of an infinite universe would be a lot easier to believe than something the size of a spec of dust exploded creating everything.  
 
Edited by rum, 2015-06-12 18:45:18

Johnbisonbear said "    JR said "    Johnbisonbear said "and there is a Heaven. Because of my personal experiences I believe!     As for all the horrible stuff that happens everyday? Life is a lesson... " Please explain to me what possible lesson a baby born with severe physical handicaps could possibly learn. What lesson did my grandmother learn just before she died of inoperable cancer? Any "god" responsible for this type of suffering is truly evil and cruel. I prefer to think that there is no god, because I refuse to believe that a being that has that type of hold on the human race could be so cruel. Disease is evidence that there is NOT a perfect designer of the universe. Nothing is perfect and never will be - least of all, human belief.   " teach their family lessons, in love and in life. We have a severely disabled child in the extended family and the parents are doing a bang up job of caring for her.     People die everyday, it is their fate, no way to stop that is there? One way or another everyone suffers in some way before death. When people linger on their way out family and friends gather to offer their comfort and love. This is the "milk of human kindness", imo.     Everyone has their own belief, I prefer to believe. "

Do you not hear what you are saying? A severely disabled child is born to a life of suffering to teach the family a lesson??? What kind of cruel deity would put that kind of pain on a child for the benefit of a "life lesson" to others?  
 
A true, [i]loving[/i] creator would not have allowed for suffering in the innocent. Of course, you will now inform me that we are all born sinners, so no one is truly innocent. It's amazing how your circular "logic" resolves everything into god's will.  
 
What about the people that are in such pain and have such poor quality of life due to illness that all they want is to die? How can a kind and selfless god allow that kind of suffering?  
 
In fact, how can a loving god condemn more than 50% of the human population to everlasting torture just because they don't believe in YOUR version of a deity? What about people who have not been exposed to the myth of christianity? They have no idea of the existence of your god, but, as innocent as they may be, they are doomed to an eternity of fire, brimstone and unspeakable tortures. Yup. Sounds "loving and kind" and believable to me...  

There will only be volunteers in heaven, those who asked God to forgive their sins and accept Jesus as their Saviour. Nobody is forced to do this. I'd rather spend this short lifetime in servitude to God so I can spend eternity with him than spend this short lifetime denying him and his existence and spend eternity wishing I'd served him.  

S&L said "    leeway said "It only makes sense to not fall for the post. Who else would be so bored or angry to make a post out of the blue on a site known for complaining, to call down our God. Obviously it was made to stir up an argument so what??? They can sit back and judge how all the Christians reacted? We know the truth..... And one day they will too. In the meantime we can pray for them have a good day all! " There is no historical proof Jesus existed except the bible which was written and re-written to suit the writers' views. Believers will say there is evidence but there is none. Modern human brain size has been the same for 10,000 years and I'm sure they thought about their existence and how it came to be as well as we do. They saw things over the eons that they didn't understand and a supernatural being was the only answer. Most strange occurunces like solar and lunar eclipses, meteors, stars, storms with lightning,rainbows and more came from looking upward therefore there must be some body up there running things. You could add terrestrial happenings like earthquakes and floods and any other calamity you could think of. Also our dreams where you see dead people and experience weird happenings would seem real to our ancestors and definitely unexplainable. All these ancient legends came from a modern size brain which could not come up with a explanation except a super natural being running things. It's time people realize that time and science are proving the ancient religious texts are a bunch of poppycock. Religion and fear of god and hell has kept people in bondage for thousands of years and it's time stop. "

There are writings by Jewish historian about a charismatic profit named Jesus at the time of the bible some are thought to be frauds most written years after and none are eye witness accounts doesn't prove or disprove god, Jews don't believe Jesus was the son of god and are still waiting for the Messiah

volkswagon said "There will only be volunteers in heaven, those who asked God to forgive their sins and accept Jesus as their Saviour. Nobody is forced to do this. I'd rather spend this short lifetime in servitude to God so I can spend eternity with him than spend this short lifetime denying him and his existence and spend eternity wishing I'd served him.   "

Volenteer is hardly a word I would use to describe that relationship. Known as pascals wager, to those with a presence in the forum circuit.

cohiba said "Can anyone not think of the good things God has done? Like redemption from sin? Dying on the cross for our salvation and allowing us to enter heaven by calling on the name of Jesus for the forgiveness of our sins?? That is proof right there that he is a loving God, he created us with a free will and since the world has sin, many will chose to do things that hurt others, this DOES NOT mean that God had willed for these bad things to happen. But he also knows how we feel since he came to this earth and suffered as a human and was even tempted , but never sinned! He knows how we hurt and our weaknesses and is there for us to call on him in our time of need and will comfort us and provide a way out if we are tempted to sin! "

You can't be seriously saying you actually believe in the fairy stories made up by the church. Written by people who were not even born when these fairy stories were made up and spread among the uneducated communities of the world. If so called god made us in his image, he must have been a very evil person. As we as the human race are very evil beings. Do at least try and open your mind and look around you and take the stories in the greatest story book ever written as what it is "a story book"

Original sin was made up by the church. The church has a lot to answer for and yet there are still some who will give there hard earned money to these conspirators.  
The devil does exist... it is money which was also created by man.

I have been raised catholic when I was young, but I have not attended the church in some time.  
 
Think about this, we as human being's can control the area around ourselves, we're a very intellectual species, and have free will to do what we want.  
 
What do you think cats or dogs or any other species on this planet think of us? We probably appear to be gods to these creatures...  
 
I just think one cannot spend their entire life believing in this and believing in that while missing the true gift of life. I'm not saying drop you're beliefs or anything like that, all i'm saying is a no one and I repeat no one knows what theory is right..  
 
All us as human's can do is be the best we can be, do kind favor's to all the creatures of this planet and i'm sure how ever we were created or whom ever created us didn't need us to go to church every Sunday, rather just be the best you can be and if there is judgment, i'm sure this will be looked upon rather than how many Our Father's you can say.

rum said "    Torque said "    rum said "    Nordberg said "Paper doesn't have to exist in the universe, but we know it does because we have evidence of it.     My evidence of paper? There's at least 15 pounds of it sitting directly in front of me in different forms.     Your paper argument is specious because it is a bad metaphor, and an apparent attempt at a red herring.     In your view of the universe, God has to exist because he created it. However, the actual physical evidence and laws don't require the construct that you call God. God in this case is a useless construct when brought into reality.     The universe that actually exists does not require paper or God to exist. The fact that paper exists is just a side product of the natural forces at play on this particular planet. We know paper exists because it has measurable physical properties which we can see, touch, and most importantly... measure.     God on the other hand we cannot see, we cannot touch, but most importantly, we cannot measure in any way shape or form.     Edited by Nordberg, 2015-06-11 23:39:17" "God on the other hand we cannot see, we cannot touch, but most importantly, we cannot measure in any way shape or form."     Which must mean you can not confidently say does not exist. Based on How you defined God you can't prove he doesn't exist.     I used the paper argument because we both know it exists. We also know The world could exist without it. could I have used something else? Yes, but that one made my point.   And Yes my view of the universe is God Had to exist because he created it. I admit that. And is a lot more necessary than paper. I admit that too. " As Nordberg has eloquently pointed out by quoting Bertrand Russell, it's not up to us to disprove a god. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.     I know many atheists, and very few of them would say there is 100% no god. What they may say is (and i've seen Nordberg mention it, and he can correct me if I'm wrong)is that the god of the bible doesn't exist. That's a different idea than "no god can exist" because god as he is depicted in the bible is a self-contradictory proposition. He doesn't even make sense, nevermind the fact that he's portrayed to be a maniac with a severe phychopatic tendancies.     Also, to your point that God has to exist because he created the universe. All that serves to do is set up an infinite regress. Who created god? And if you say he's infinite then i can claim the same for the universe, It's a non-answer merry-go-round that's been used by apologists for years.     I don't care what you claim, I only care what you can prove. Observing a universe does not make necessary a universe-making god. Observing a table does not make necessary a table-making god. And because we don't understand something does not legitimize inserting a "god did it"     If all it takes to convince you that there's a god is that there's a universe and you exist in it, then that's fine. I hold nothing against you. Some of us require just a bit more.             Edited by Torque, 2015-06-12 07:25:43" (Quote("My point That God has to exist because he created the universe.") end quote) Sir, that was not a point, that is what I'm admitting I believe. I will not use that as a point or as an argument because it Just isn't one. There are far better once than that.   You point about a table making god makes no sense. WE both know tables are created by a creator, usually a carpenter, by That logic it would follow that the universe requires a creator for it is far more complicated and ordered than a table. Most explosions cause disorder. Is the big Bang the only one that caused order. Again I'm not trying to prove God, but You are using a bad argument sir. If you want Prove, ask God for prove.   And sir, that is not all it takes for me to believe that. Again that is what i was admitting to believe, not based on the universe existing, sir it took a lot of studying, experiences, and weighing the evidence to get to the point I am now.   The God of the Bible is by it's very definition infinite. If you want to argue against the God of the Bible, that argument won't work because that is the defination. Since when do you argue the universe is infinite, last I heard your theories say it was created by the Big bang. Actually I think your theory of an infinite universe would be a lot easier to believe than something the size of a spec of dust exploded creating everything.     Edited by rum, 2015-06-12 18:45:18"

That is precisely why I used the analogy of the table. Because it highlights the point that if we don't understand how something is made,it does not automatically point to a supernatural cause. Of course I know a table is made by a carpenter, but if you arrived on our planet as an alien and the first thing you saw is a table, you'd have no idea weather it was created or not, which is the point we're at with the universe, yet here you are claiming divine cause, how?  
 
 
"Most explosions cause disorder. Is the big Bang the only one that caused order."  
 
Despite weather or not the big bang theory is correct or not, the christian apologist misunderstanding and misrepresentation of it to support their own conclusions never ceases to amaze me.  
 
For someone who claims alot of studying and weighing the evidence, you dont even understand the Big Bang theory or thermodynamics for that matter, and misunderstand principles behind them.  
 
The singularity that "exploded" had a maximum entropy (the measure of disorder in a system). The singularity was not "ordered" it was quite the oposite, it was at a maximum state of disorder. Although we don't know for sure. Some physicists claim the primordial singularity hand an entropy of 0. Stephen Hawking proposed that the universe cycles between the "big bang" and the "big crunch"  
 
In either case, postulating a god as the "winder of the clock" brings us no closer to the reality of the first event. This "speck of dust" didn't create everything, it WAS everything. Again, you misunderstand what the theory actually says. You're arguing a falsehood with a falsehood.  
 
BUT TORQUE, HOW CAN WE SEE ORDER IN THE UNIVERSE IF THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS SAYS ENTROPY HAS TO INCREASE BUT NEVER DECREASE IN A SYSTEM???  
 
Yes that's true, but that law pertains to a CLOSED system, the universe, as evidenced by Edwin Hubble's Law to explain the observable expanding space paradigm, is constantly increasing and moving away from its goal of equilibrium and is not a closed system, therefore as it expands it allows for closed loops of order occuring without violating the second law. The maximum allowable entropy keeps increasing with expansion.  
Now, before you point out that these areas of order can't arise on their own, they don't. The table, for example, is not in a closed system BY ITSELF, as another object, the carpenter has expended energy to create which he got from food among other things, the wood in the table came from a tree using energy to grow from the sun and nutrients from the soil. These energies came from decaying sources or sources that are increasing in entropy, all of these sources together form the closed system. So what you have is simply a flow of energy from one point in a closed system (the earth's biosphere and the sun in this case) to another. Remember, the second law of thermodynamics says that objects of different order in a system try to gain equilibrium by transfer of energy. Eventually, the table will decay into equlibrium with its surroundings. This in no way means that a plant sprouting from the earth, or the rise of life on a planet requires divine agency.  
 
SO the argument that we see order in the universe where there shouldn't be therefore ->: God did it, falls flat on its face.  
 
If the singularity was everything including time, how does placing a god OUTSIDE it anything but a bald faced assertion?  
If the singularity was everything including time, how does saying god acted upon "nothing" to create it (everything) at a time that didn't exist before it anything but completely and utterly bizzare.  
 
So my argument isn't bad, the apoligist argument is in relation to big bang cosmology is. And you swallowed it hook, line and sinker.  
 
 
 
As an aside, it's difficult to draw analogies in relation to thermodynamic systems because the second law of thermodynamics can only be expressed mathematically, even though I hope ive illustrated it somewhat adequately.  
 
You know, for someone that has such a high standard of evidence for science, you fail to apply that same standard to your own beliefs. God creating everything from nothing seems plausible to you, but the events of the big bang are just too impossible to imagine?  
 
Thats called intellecutal dishonesty, sir.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Edited by Torque, 2015-06-13 12:43:40

JR said "    Johnbisonbear said "    JR said "    Johnbisonbear said "and there is a Heaven. Because of my personal experiences I believe!     As for all the horrible stuff that happens everyday? Life is a lesson... " Please explain to me what possible lesson a baby born with severe physical handicaps could possibly learn. What lesson did my grandmother learn just before she died of inoperable cancer? Any "god" responsible for this type of suffering is truly evil and cruel. I prefer to think that there is no god, because I refuse to believe that a being that has that type of hold on the human race could be so cruel. Disease is evidence that there is NOT a perfect designer of the universe. Nothing is perfect and never will be - least of all, human belief.   " teach their family lessons, in love and in life. We have a severely disabled child in the extended family and the parents are doing a bang up job of caring for her.     People die everyday, it is their fate, no way to stop that is there? One way or another everyone suffers in some way before death. When people linger on their way out family and friends gather to offer their comfort and love. This is the "milk of human kindness", imo.     Everyone has their own belief, I prefer to believe. " Do you not hear what you are saying? A severely disabled child is born to a life of suffering to teach the family a lesson??? What kind of cruel deity would put that kind of pain on a child for the benefit of a "life lesson" to others?     A true, [i]loving[/i] creator would not have allowed for suffering in the innocent. Of course, you will now inform me that we are all born sinners, so no one is truly innocent. It's amazing how your circular "logic" resolves everything into god's will.     What about the people that are in such pain and have such poor quality of life due to illness that all they want is to die? How can a kind and selfless god allow that kind of suffering?     In fact, how can a loving god condemn more than 50% of the human population to everlasting torture just because they don't believe in YOUR version of a deity? What about people who have not been exposed to the myth of christianity? They have no idea of the existence of your god, but, as innocent as they may be, they are doomed to an eternity of fire, brimstone and unspeakable tortures. Yup. Sounds "loving and kind" and believable to me...   "

and they have to suffer before they die, it happens to the best of people.  
 
To live and have no suffering or illness, that will never happen and it has nothing to do with whether God loves us or not.  
 
Anyway, I pm'ed you a message.

I was going to reply to your post but feel that TORQUE as adequately expressed my position on this matter. With a mind more inclined to look at scientific fact as the basis of my beliefs and for the answers to my deep question, I don't feel the need for a higher power to intervene or to give meaning to my life. That's my job and I'm doing fine.  
 
TORQUE...Bravo sir! Lay that logic down!  
 
Marpet

amazing when in court you our to place your hand on the bible and to tell the whole truth so help you god what happens if you tell the judge that you cann't because they our telling you that you baleave in god maybe you beleive in satan or you donn't believe in god would they send you to jail  
 
Edited by todd j, 2015-06-13 16:52:05

Marpet said "I was going to reply to your post but feel that TORQUE as adequately expressed my position on this matter. With a mind more inclined to look at scientific fact as the basis of my beliefs and for the answers to my deep question, I don't feel the need for a higher power to intervene or to give meaning to my life. That's my job and I'm doing fine.     TORQUE...Bravo sir! Lay that logic down!     Marpet "

Yes, Some very insightful and unarguable logic was put out there in this thread, said far better, and more politely then I ever could have managed, as from my own childhood experiences with christianity, any mention of it today ends up making me choke on my words and spit venom.  
 
And if scientific fact is of value to you, all the more reason to lean away from christianity.  
 
Anthropologically speaking, religion was an important factor in allowing hunter gatherers form the first communities and live together without committng crimes against one another, knowing that an unseen force was watching them, and of concern for their afterlife.  
 
It was a clever idea of MAN to create such things as the ten commandments, and the basic moral rules of other early religions to keep people in check.  
 
Nowadays, we have police detectives, crime scene investigators, and institutions, people no longer need to be brainwashed to stay civilized.  
 
Religion is obsolete.  
 
Further more, especially in the last several centuries, it is now simply holding back the progress of our species, christians would persecute scientists, even burn them at the stake. They're still trying to hold back science, can't hardly do anything in a lab without christian special interest groups screaming that its unethical.  
 
Anything from life extention to smashing particles together to understand the universe is a big big No No to these well funded groups.  
 
Historically, if christians had their way, the earth would still be flat and the sun, moon, and stars would still revolve around it, and illnesses of any sort would be demonic possession.  
 
The Human species will never reach its full potential, we will never reach the stars or have lifespans measured in centuries or millennia and end all disease or make the amazing dreams of science fiction into reality if religion continues to have the same influence on the world as it does today.  
 
 

I'm not sure if I have any more faith in man than I would in God. Was it God or man that learned to forge metals and create swords that were used to kill, was it God or man that created explosives that are used to propel bullets or large shells filled with more explosive to destroy life, was it God or man that figured out nuclear fusion and was it God or man that used it to take lives. I imagine I could look at any of the sciences and find where our understanding as humans, has resulted it both good and bad from those discoveries.  
 
God (religion) and man (science) is there really any difference, maybe at times the truth is not all that important. In the last 150 years we have really came ahead as far as science and technology, but also our population has boomed, and providing for these people will create a demand on our resources, which are not infinite, and at some point man will be forced to play God and will decide who lives and who dies,  
 
It's nice to have faith, but just don't get carried away.  
 
Edited by don brown, 2015-06-14 06:33:54

It was early, nuclear fission.

Committed2Brandon said "In response to some of your issues with Christianity Marpet, here again is my response.     You said "I do not need a god, that I am required to be afraid of, in order to do just and morals actions"     That may be the case for you Marpet, and I would not argue otherwise, except that if there is no afterlife than there is no justice when life becomes unfair. Similarly there is no consequence to the harm one does on this earth save and except for what society can do in retaliation. I imagine a number of people on ebrandon could think of situations where people have done harmful things to them and were never punished for it. If there is no afterlife there is no justice.     You have said that you are an atheist Marpet, and that your life is not 'utterly unfair' - that is all fine and good for you, and I am happy to hear that your life is going well, and I hope it continues like that for your entire life, but what of those who are suffering? What of those whose life is utterly unfair. What comfort does your atheism give them?     I'm not saying that the comfort that comes from an afterlife is a reason for God's existence, but rather it is a symptom of it. I am however saying that in atheism there is no comfort for the trajedies of life, for the unfairness of it. Many in these posts have said I don't want to believe in a God that allows suffering, and you yourself have said that 'He sounds mean'. Well how does that compare to a belief in atheism where there is no afterlife and no justice, no comfort for those who suffer - that sounds far worse to me.     I think it's too bad that part of your reason for not believing in God is that you don't want to believe in one that allows suffering. However, in your atheism there is nothing but the suffering - and no reason for it, no redemption to be gained for it. You are almost contradicting yourself in a way, in that you're upset over the idea of a God allowing suffering, and so instead you prefer the idea of no god where there is nothing but the suffering.     You have also said that 'scientifically there is no proof of a soul'     Any good lawyer or debater would suggest to you that it's often not wise to suggest that there is 'no evidence' when you cannot possibly come to that conclusion with certainty.     I would disagree greatly with you Marpet. For the scientific evidence for a soul is greater than you think. There are numerous examples of people who have suffered near death experiences who have a state of consciousness outside of their bodies where science cannot explain or properly understand why they are able to view and experience things that their body is otherwise incapable of. There are numerous examples of people who have went outside their bodies, and outside of the room their bodies were left in to die, or outside of the room they were being operated on, and then could verify what they saw in those other places - which can then be corroborated based on evidence. There are a lot of examples of people who were born blind who could see for the first time ever in a near death experience. There are also people who never knew of Christ, were never religious before, but have said that they met Jesus when they went through near death experiences. There is one example in particular that I can think of where an individual floated outside of his body, and recalled seeing and describing an object outside of the building, whereby it was concluded that the description of the object ( a sneaker) could have only been seen by someone in close proximity to the shoe, on the outside of the 3rd floor of the building.     If in fact people are capable of experiencing a sixth sense when they go through a near death experience (for example being able to see through walls or travel distances without their body) then why can't science duplicate that when they're alive?     Marpet, you've also said that matter doesn't require a reason, well here you have quite the philosophical and rational conundrum - I venture to guess that everything in this universe seems to have a reason, is that not the basis behind the scientific method?Which by the way was developed by the Catholic Church. If everything else has a reason, why does matter have none? Really, do you really believe that matter doesn't have to have a reason to exist? That it just is? Does that make any sense to you at all? That everything exists and started with matter, which just existed for absolutely no reason whatsoever. I venture to guess that for most of us who are scientific your suggestion does not make sense.     You speak of Christianity being a religion that only represents a minority of the world's population, and you're right, but perhaps it has little to do with a majority of the world's population rejecting Christianity, but rather perhaps it has much more to do with the majority of the world not being well informed about what Chrisianity represents, as you yourself seem to be. A number of individuals have posted on this topic that Christians should not be trying to push their religion on others, and I would agree that evangelization should never be forced or coerced. But if there's no conversations or lively debate about what we believe it will be difficult for others to ever be able to fully decide on whether what we have is true?     So it can't fully be said that 69 percent of the world disagrees with us. Much of the world nations have now or in the past had restrictions on the spread of Christianity in their countries. Much of the Muslim world does not allow conversions, and throughout much of China and Japan's history where Christians are a small minority, Christians were not allowed to practice their religion.     Marpet, you then ask 'why are we required to suffer' and further to this you state 'your God sounds mean', specifically because he allows us to suffer.   Isn't the reason evident? It comes down to love. God allows suffering so that we can love each other. We cannot give to another if that other does not need to receive anything. We find the greatest source of love in Christ and the martyrs. For in Christianity, God so loved the world that he would come among us, not because He had to, but in order to show us His love for us. For God demonstrated that pride and our own selfish desires are nothing by coming to earth, allowing human beings to torture, ridicule and crucify Him so as to show us that He loves us so much that He would suffer equally with us so that we might understand that we find the greatest meaning from our suffering - from our love for others.     God does not lead through fear and agression, that is not His intention, His greatest intention and His greatest example of leadership is through His love.     Marpet, you seem to be fixated on the thought that you can be moral without believing in a God, or a soul, and as I've said now many times, I agree with you, you can be, but without that belief there is only so much consequence to the actions of those who harm others. Without God, there is no pure justice in this world. Without God there is far less meaning to our lives. With God there is so much more love for our world. "

After rereading your post, I decided to comment of a few points. This may be long.  
 
"If there is no afterlife there is no justice."  
 
I do not require an afterlife to gain the justice I need in this world. Will things work out in my favor? Not all the time but why should they. How do I know that what I perceive as justice isn't committing an injustice on another? The best I can do is act in a moral and just manner and accept whatever outcome that arrives. Since I will be dead, I see no justice that needs to be gained.  
 
"I am however saying that in atheism there is no comfort for the tragedies of life, for the unfairness of it."  
 
As an Atheist, I don't look for comfort in the tragedies in life. Life is. I do my best to lead a happy and fulfilling life but I have had my share of loss...heartache. I deal with the it, with the knowledge that loss is a part of living and that death is a part of life. I don't need to convince myself that I will "see them again" to feel better. I was lucky enough to have been a part of their lives to begin with. The problem with your line of thinking is that your unwilling to accept that the world will go on without you. You over exaggerate your own existence. That would be like saying how do the people of some country you visited go on with their lives once you have returned home. Just as this world and the people in it had no knowledge of me before I was born, I will be forgotten to history by the time my (future) grandchildren pass away. I will be sure to not even leave a stone with my name on it. When was the last time you walked through the cemetery, longing for the return of the strangers interned?  
 
"However, in your atheism there is nothing but the suffering - and no reason for it, no redemption to be gained for it."  
 
Spoken like a true Christian. "If you don't believe in the lord, then your life is nothing but suffering!" In reading your posts, it sounds like you are the one who is suffering and it seems you will only be happy if everyone is suffering with you.  
 
No thanks, I'm good.  
 
"There are numerous examples of people who have suffered near death experiences who have a state of consciousness outside of their bodies where science cannot explain or properly understand why they are able to view and experience things that their body is otherwise incapable of."  
 
It would be my assumption that you are confusing consciousness with the existence of a soul. Neither can be "removed" but consciousness can at least be measured and quantified. Once the term soul is brought into the conversation then most scientific testing is scrubbed because "it's God's will".  
 
I would direct you to read 'Waking Up, A guide to Spirituality without Religion' by Sam Harris.  
 
http://www.amazon.ca/Waking-Up-Spirituality-Without-Religion/dp/1451636016  
 
There is a chapter on near death experiences which shows just how unreliable such stories are. Far too unreliable to be used a proof of an afterlife or soul.  
 
There are countless medical examples of people suffering brain injuries that leave them severely incapacitated either temporarily or permanently and yet you are willing to hold up examples of a brain injury that is almost fatal and use those experiences as proof? Your proof leaves me unsatisfied.  
 
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-near-death-experience-isnt-proof-heaven/  
 
"Really, do you really believe that matter doesn't have to have a reason to exist? That it just is? Does that make any sense to you at all?"  
 
I think your playing with schematics a little here. I will assert that there is no conscious reason for matter to exist. I can claim confidently that the elements on the periodic table exist because they were formed in the nuclear furnace of stars, and the chemical reactions that followed but that doesn't mean they need a "reason". They just are. I'm comfortable with that.  
 
"That everything exists and started with matter, which just existed for absolutely no reason whatsoever."  
 
Yes, that is exactly what I believe.  
 
You assert that God is eternal and infinite, with no beginning or end. Seems like a pretty boring existence when all he really seems to be interested in is the day to day happenings of a certain kind of primate living on a Pale Blue Dot, circling an average star. He seems really interested in what we do with our bodies at night, too. Lucky us! (Sam Harris said it better)  
 
"You speak of Christianity being a religion that only represents a minority of the world's population, and you're right, but perhaps it has little to do with a majority of the world's population rejecting Christianity, but rather perhaps it has much more to do with the majority of the world not being well informed about what Chrisianity represents, as you yourself seem to be... But if there's no conversations or lively debate about what we believe it will be difficult for others to ever be able to fully decide on whether what we have is true?"  
 
But that isn't what really happens is it. Most countries and Nations that weren't Christian kinda had it forced on them. Those that refused were banished, those that accepted it then pushed it on their children while maintaining that theirs was the "only true God" and that refusing him would lead to eternity in hell. Nice recruitment tactics for the little ones. My 15 year old daughter went to look at a puppy last summer without our permission or knowledge. The breeder told her that if she didn't buy it they would put the pup down that night. Guess who has a new dog?  
 
My late step father was an Atheist, my mother is a Christian, neither my wife or I are religious but we had our daughter's baptized because that's what new parents do. I mentioned this to my Step father with the idea that they could decide for themselves later on if they were to follow religion.  
 
He asked me if I was going to teach them to be Communists as well, since I was going to leave it up to them for later.  
 
If you want to have the conversation, don't just bring your religion to the table, bring them all and let people decide for themselves which one they like (or don't) and don't threaten them with a "hell" if they don't choose what you want them too.  
 
"God allows suffering so that we can love each other."  
 
I don't need to make my wife and children suffer to show them that I love them. I don't need to suffer to show those around me that I love them.  
 
God is either impotent or uncaring. I'm going with non-existent.  
 
" Without God there is far less meaning to our lives."  
 
That is a pretty lofty position to put yourself in. You have more meaning in your life than I do? I would never presume to make such a statement. Statement's like that are why I have a problem with religion as a whole.  
 
I am not broken or misguided. I just don't need some parent figure in the sky, hovering over me, scaring me into being "good". I can be good on my own.  
 
I'm a big boy.  
 
Marpet  
 
 

But all of these religions and people bickering about their religion just sounds like "my imaginary friend is better than yours" to me. If you follow your faith, good for you. Just keep it to yourself  

Marpet, you strike me as a rather intelligent individual, and I think at least many of your comments were well considered, but there are many problems with your arguments, so here is my response.  
 
Everything that follows in parentheses, unless otherwise indicated is taken from your last comments.  
 
You said, and I quote:  
"The best I can do is act in a moral and just manner and accept whatever outcome that arrives. Since I will be dead, I see no justice that needs to be gained."  
 
Marpet, part of the problem with your argument is that you're saying if one (you) is dead, there is therefore no more need for justice. Therefore justice ends with death, as does life. Therefore, you cannot say to the person whose life is far worse than yours that there is any justice for that, it just simply is. This begs the question of what meaning can be gleaned from your life? For by your line of reasoning people are inherently selfish and need only care about what happen while they themselves are alive as it will only affect them during that time period. In a way you are saying that if it doesn’t benefit you, than why care about it? This logic is however not self sustaining. For if we only concern ourselves with ourselves, than the poor and weak will never be helped, neither will future generations ever benefit from what we can provide for them save and except for that of which they get left over as an unintended inheritance. By your line of thought the environment should not be protected or maintained unless it benefits our generation the most. By your logic people should be selfish because all that there is, is their life, and everyone else only matters as far as they can benefit you or make you happy. I fear that you may have shown your true colors Marpet in your comment “Since I will be dead, I see no justice that needs to be gained.”  
 
You have also said “How do I know that what I perceive as justice isn't committing an injustice on another?” It is difficult for me to say with certainty what you are trying to get at here, but I think that perhaps what you are saying is that injustice is subjective, and what may be unjust to me might not be unjust to you. There are so many problems with that thought. If there is no such thing as objective justice, than really we have nothing to base our justice system on, nothing to base our rights and freedoms on, and nothing to base our laws on, because meh, everything is subjective. Should we therefore do away with all of our laws and the legal system?  
 
Perhaps though what you are saying here is that one can never know with complete certainty what the full consequences of ones actions will be, and if this is what you were trying to say than I can only agree with you there. However, if one is basing their decisions on whether or not to act by the whole butterfly affect argument, than no one would ever act at all, which obviously does not make any sense either.  
 
You have also said  
“The problem with your line of thinking is that your unwilling to accept that the world will go on without you. You over exaggerate your own existence”  
 
It is not merely my existence that I believe to be as you say “over exaggerated” in importance Marpet, but yours as well and that of every other human being in the world. For if we do not place the importance of man above all others than human life is not sacred, at least not as sacred as we humans have made it out to be. If human life is not sacred, than there is far less meaning to the rights that you and I have in our relatively free country that we live in. If human life is not sacred than the atrocities of days gone by can be all but forgotten. There would be no point in remembering the holocaust, or our veterans on Remembrance Day. There would be no point in any nation that has ever wronged another to concern themselves with what they have done because well that has all come to pass. There would be no point in an individual feeling regret for the harm they have done to another or trying to make reparation for it, for that too has already come to pass. Yes Marpet, in Christianity man is elevated to a greater place in existence, the world will still go on without us once we die, but because we have God we are not forgotten. In your world Marpet I can only assume there is little connection between generations, therefore as I’ve already stated, far less reason to forego what would otherwise benefit you for what may benefit future generations. With your line of reasoning Marpet, development and progress decreases. With your line of reasoning Marpet human development and science is far better served by Christianity.  
 
You have also made a comment,  
“In reading your posts, it sounds like you are the one who is suffering and it seems you will only be happy if everyone is suffering with you.”  
 
Again, I have to strongly disagree with you Marpet, though I must admit that this statement shows that at least in this part, you have a fair degree of understanding into what I have been getting at. In a way you can say that there are times when I do suffer, in that there are times when I may experience physical or perhaps even emotional pain based on my experiences of life, just as so many others, if not everyone experiences. The difference between me and you however is that in my suffering I believe that my God can give it meaning, and in my relationship with God it can be used to alleviate the suffering of others. If I can forego my own needs for that of another than I truly am happy. This is perhaps the strongest motivation that we humans have. We will forego our own desires in order to put into practice our desire to will the good of the other as other, as opposed to a selfish want. This is what we Christians would call love. For it is in giving of yourself that we can truly give pure love. In a way I hope that others would as you say “suffer with me” Marpet in the sense that I hope others will deny themselves so as to love another, for I know that one cannot be truly happy unless one lives for that love.  
 
You have also said Marpet that  
“It would be my assumption that you are confusing consciousness with the existence of a soul. Neither can be "removed" but consciousness can at least be measured and quantified. Once the term soul is brought into the conversation then most scientific testing is scrubbed because "it's God's will".”  
 
No Marpet, this is not an example of me confusing anything, but rather it’s a case of you attempting to define the soul as something that can be separated from a state of consciousness. I have never said that a soul can be separated from a state of consciousness, but rather as my arguments concerning the evidence of near death experiences suggests, I am obviously not separating the two, at least not completely.  
 
I appreciate the suggestion to read Sam Harris’ book, and certainly hope to do so when I get the chance. I also enjoyed reading the link you posted by Scientific American on near death experiences. This is a good magazine, and so many of us have learnt a lot from reading the material contained in the magazines pages. However, the article says nothing about those who went through near death experiences and have been able to experience powers that they did not otherwise have while they were alive – such as being able to see through walls, or hear what others had said in distant and far off places, powers associated with the senses, that we don’t have. All that you can do is suggest that these sources are unreliable, and admittedly you and I don’t likely have the benefit of being able to use a courtroom where we can call and question the veracity of the witnesses to these events in order to ascertain their validity. But it is a form of evidence none the less. I suppose that if we disregarded all witness testimony as being unreliable most crimes would likely go unpunished, and much of what we as humans know to be true can only be concluded to be possible, since we ourselves have not had an opportunity to directly test it out.  
 
With regard to your assertion concerning matter just existing without any reason, well Marpet, I don’t think there’s a lot more I can say to that one. I admire you though for admitting to that, for I think it’s difficult for most atheists to do. I would comment however that if all came from matter, and if in fact matter had no reason to exist, than ultimately at the deepest level all that we see and all that we know has no reason, it just is. It is in my opinion one of the most outlandish suggestions that anyone could ever assert. I would wager to guess that most people in this world would agree with me on that one.  
 
You have also said “You assert that God is eternal and infinite, with no beginning or end. Seems like a pretty boring existence when all he really seems to be interested in is the day to day happenings of a certain kind of primate living on a Pale Blue Dot, circling an average star.”  
 
I don’t recall God ever saying that all God was interested in was “the day to day happenings” of human beings, though I admit that we are significantly important to Him, and perhaps even potentially the most important. I’m not sure why that makes God’s existence pretty boring. You may have to enlighten me on that one. Perhaps you are of the opinion that even in a hypothetical existence that if God did exist, human beings are somehow unworthy of His attention. Though I’m not sure that this is what you’re suggesting. Perhaps you have some issues with your own sense of importance or that of others that you know that has caused you to come to this conclusion.  
 
You have also said:  
“But that isn't what really happens is it. Most countries and Nations that weren't Christian kinda had it forced on them. Those that refused were banished, those that accepted it then pushed it on their children while maintaining that theirs was the "only true God" and that refusing him would lead to eternity in hell.”  
 
Here Marpet I concede that no doubt there were likely many cases where Christianity was forced on others. This is most unfortunate, and I would not try to argue that it is justified or right. Neither was I ever arguing that Christianity should be accepted because the largest religion in the world is Christian. As I said in my beginning post,  
“I agree it's not enough that Christianity is the largest religion in the world, Surely it would require more”  
 
What I was suggesting however is that the hypothetical person who is considering whether or not to follow a religion, should not simply accept Christianity because it is the largest religion in the world. You have actually helped me in my argument. You must admit however that of the world’s religions, Christianity is the largest, and therefore a large proportion of the world’s people consider it to be true. You must also admit that of the areas of the world where there is freedom of religion, many of the Christian countries at least today stand out as being beacons of religious tolerance, as opposed to many of the areas of the world which are dominated by other forms of belief.  
 
You have further said:  
“I don't need to make my wife and children suffer to show them that I love them. I don't need to suffer to show those around me that I love them.”  
 
Again Marpet, I would reiterate, one cannot commit an act of love for another if the other does not want or need anything. If we had all we ever wanted and all we ever needed without a need for others, there would be no need to give anything to another. This is a problem for love.  
 
You have also said  
“God is either impotent or uncaring. I'm going with non-existent.”  
 
Again, if that is what you have understood, then you have either failed to read what I have said or failed to fully understand it.  
 
Finally, you quoted me  
“" Without God there is far less meaning to our lives."  
 
And then you said  
“That is a pretty lofty position to put yourself in. You have more meaning in your life than I do? I would never presume to make such a statement. Statement's like that are why I have a problem with religion as a whole.”  
 
Yes, Marpet, this is true, at least in a sense, the sum of your statements have shown that to be true. For you have suggested that justice does not matter after our own personal death. You have also suggested that life is not fair and that there is ultimately nothing that ever makes it fair. You have suggested that our existence is so finite that it only lasts as long as our life. I think that you have suggested that truth is subjective, and this too shows that there is less and less meaning to our existence. You have made that argument for me in your posts by your own statements that as I say “without God there is far less meaning to our lives.”  
 
I’m glad Marpet that you can be your own good, but if you are right, there is no consequence for you if in a hypothetical world you harm another, and no justice for the one who is wronged (assuming that hypothetically you are ok with it, and no one is prepared to avenge that wrong). You are a “big boy” Marpet, just as all of those who have done serious harm to another were when they were in full appreciation of the consequences, such as many murderers, rapists, those who have committed genocide or people who have inflicted other forms of great harm on another. You are a “big boy” just as God will allow you to be when you at some point appear before Him and make an account for your actions. You are a “big boy” Marpet, and God will allow you to be a far bigger person than you yourself want to be, as God will hold you truly accountable for your actions in this life, as opposed to that of a child who we tend not to hold accountable for the consequences of their actions.  

I'm going to forgo responding to all of that as we will start having circular arguments which will get us nowhere.  
 
I will center on one area though. What follows is what you posted but has me quoted.  
 
-"Finally, you quoted me  
“" Without God there is far less meaning to our lives."  
 
And then you said  
“That is a pretty lofty position to put yourself in. You have more meaning in your life than I do? I would never presume to make such a statement. Statement's like that are why I have a problem with religion as a whole.”  
 
Yes, Marpet, this is true, at least in a sense, the sum of your statements have shown that to be true. For you have suggested that justice does not matter after our own personal death. You have also suggested that life is not fair and that there is ultimately nothing that ever makes it fair. You have suggested that our existence is so finite that it only lasts as long as our life. I think that you have suggested that truth is subjective, and this too shows that there is less and less meaning to our existence. You have made that argument for me in your posts by your own statements that as I say “without God there is far less meaning to our lives.”"  
 
Fundamentally, this is the problem that I have with religion. I'm glad that you have your god. I happy that it gives your life meaning and purpose. I'm confident that you will try to lead a just and moral life following the teachings of Jesus Christ...but I don't see the need. I am just as moral and I strive to lead a just life. I don't turn away from those in need and I don't lie awake at night worrying about what happens after my death. I never implied that we shouldn't remember our dead or why they lost their lives, just that I don't see the need for people to worry about my "soul" or anyone else's for that matter.  
 
Look, I'm not trying to change your mind or anyone else's. The issue I have is that religion doesn't stay in the confines of one man's heart or home. Use it to do good in your community. By all means use it to help those in other countries that need it but I feel strongly that it shouldn't be a part of our education system, justice system, government or healthcare system. Your religion and beliefs should NOT affect my education, politics, justice or healthcare. You are free to refuse any teachings, political parties or services at your local hospital if it goes against your beliefs. I shouldn't have to be subjected to them or the lack of them, against my will, if they go against mine.  
 
You have implied that without god I am somehow broken, misguided, lost...however you want to put it. I disagree with you and view this as a self righteous attitude towards others who don't share your beliefs.  
 
I am quite happy looking at the world as it is, for what it is...content with the knowledge that science will be the source of my answers to the big questions as well as the source for more questions.  
 
Marpet  

Marpet said "I'm going to forgo responding to all of that as we will start having circular arguments which will get us nowhere.     I will center on one area though. What follows is what you posted but has me quoted.     -"Finally, you quoted me   “" Without God there is far less meaning to our lives."     And then you said   “That is a pretty lofty position to put yourself in. You have more meaning in your life than I do? I would never presume to make such a statement. Statement's like that are why I have a problem with religion as a whole.”     Yes, Marpet, this is true, at least in a sense, the sum of your statements have shown that to be true. For you have suggested that justice does not matter after our own personal death. You have also suggested that life is not fair and that there is ultimately nothing that ever makes it fair. You have suggested that our existence is so finite that it only lasts as long as our life. I think that you have suggested that truth is subjective, and this too shows that there is less and less meaning to our existence. You have made that argument for me in your posts by your own statements that as I say “without God there is far less meaning to our lives.”"     Fundamentally, this is the problem that I have with religion. I'm glad that you have your god. I happy that it gives your life meaning and purpose. I'm confident that you will try to lead a just and moral life following the teachings of Jesus Christ...but I don't see the need. I am just as moral and I strive to lead a just life. I don't turn away from those in need and I don't lie awake at night worrying about what happens after my death. I never implied that we shouldn't remember our dead or why they lost their lives, just that I don't see the need for people to worry about my "soul" or anyone else's for that matter.     Look, I'm not trying to change your mind or anyone else's. The issue I have is that religion doesn't stay in the confines of one man's heart or home. Use it to do good in your community. By all means use it to help those in other countries that need it but I feel strongly that it shouldn't be a part of our education system, justice system, government or healthcare system. Your religion and beliefs should NOT affect my education, politics, justice or healthcare. You are free to refuse any teachings, political parties or services at your local hospital if it goes against your beliefs. I shouldn't have to be subjected to them or the lack of them, against my will, if they go against mine.     You have implied that without god I am somehow broken, misguided, lost...however you want to put it. I disagree with you and view this as a self righteous attitude towards others who don't share your beliefs.     I am quite happy looking at the world as it is, for what it is...content with the knowledge that science will be the source of my answers to the big questions as well as the source for more questions.     Marpet   "

Let's imagine you knew there was a bomb in this building. You also know that a person you greatly love will be going into this building shortly. Would you not want to warn this person? Would you not want to grab a hold of their hand and stop them from entering?  
 
Yes, I will admit I do feel that one without God is broken, misguided etc. However, it is so much more than that. I see such people as walking into this building that has a bomb ready to explode. Understand it not necessarily a self righteous attitude towards others who don't share my belief. Instead it is a strong desire to stop anyone from walking into this impending doom.  
 

Sometimes even science has to change, even after a theory has been accepted over a period of time. Couldn't really understand all of this article but it makes on think because sometimes an accepted theory allows mathematical solutions but in the end may be wrong.  
 
Interest read for those inclined  
http://www.wired.com/2014/08/multiverse/

Sometimes ideas get adopted and are not questioned, sort of like religion.  
Ok off to work.