Oh, so some egotistical bastard is going to be upset if he he isn't worshiped and this is a reason to worship him?



Some "God" that is. I think the guy next door that beats his wife gave her a similar ultimatum.

So you're saying that your God is just as sick as the most demented mortal humans on Earth?

Lets change the semantics and imagine I had said 'soley' self fulfilling

for those who can get pleasure from doing for others, I suppose there is 'self fulfillment' there

(although, I will admit, when I help out the homeless kid outside the store, I think I fulfill HIM a bit more than I fulfill myself, although it is a 'good' feeling to help, I leave worrying and concerned and not quite 'fulfilled')


I can see, however, some may be totally helping others for their own fulfillment, in which case such actions would be 'solely' self fulfilling


,, in either case though,,,,If our highest concern stops at us,, I consider that to be self fulfilling, even if that concern for ourself (our conscience, our sense of value ) ends in us helping others,,,,,

what im saying is that you are less than an ant at GODs foot

Humans are less than an ant at God's foot and that's supposed to give our lives "meaning"?

To be perfectly honest with you I think life would be far more meaningful if we had just evolved from slime.

Being less than an ant under some God's foot is hardly a meaningful existence if you ask me.

not an atheist, agnostic here, but i'll chime in anyway. science is not out to prove anything as true. science is a discipline of study that attempts to find answers about the visible universe. stephen hawking says that even the best theories, big bang, evolution, whatever, can never be proved. not a clue what a naturalist is but the purpose of the human species seems to be no different than the purpose of any living species; survive, procreat and try like hell to not become extinct like the dinosaurs. and yes, then we die and feed the worms. if there's more, it's beyond the capability of the human mind to know.

Hmm ... four pages and nobody thought to say "42"? Really?

Well not only that, but science isn't out to disprove religion either.

The reason the religions butt heads with science is not because science is out to disprove religion, but simply because religious myths conflict with scientific observations and therefore the religions need to belittle the information of science in an attempt to keep their fables on the shelves marked "non-fiction".

People seem to have no problem at all with dismissing many man-made myths from Zeus, to Thor, to Odin, to Wanka Tanka, and so many others.

They instantly recognize the outrageous absurdities in these fables. And they don't even bother coming to their defense by claiming that they are merely stories of parables to make moral points. They just dismiss them as being obviously false.

But for some reason the Abrahamic fables of the ancient Hebrews have somehow survived the criticism of the masses and have gained their undying support.

Gods who are appeased by blood sacrifice such as Zeus are passed off as being utterly absurd. But for some reason this is accepted in the case of the Hebrew Yahweh.

The Greeks had the God's living on Mt. Olympus. Now everyone is convinced that no God's live on Mt. Olympus so they easily dismiss the fables as clearly being false.

The Hebrews placed their God in "The Heaven" (which was actually thought of as the night sky or the physical universe that we see around us. Somehow, over the centuries this "heaven" became a spiritual place that is not the universe we see in the night sky.

I'm not so sure how they pulled that on off.

But now the Hebrew God is safely tucked away in a "spiritual" heaven where he can never be disproved to exist. But the truth is that when these stories were first created people were thinking that everything that is not "Earth" is "heaven". The moon, the sun, and the wandering stars, or planets were all in the "heavens". In fact, it was believed that there are seven levels to "heaven". Based entirely on the sun, moon and planets that could be visually seen at the time.

This is why the number "SEVEN" became so divine in these myths.

~~~~~

These Abraham myths claim that God created the Earth in 6 days and saw that it was "GOOD". Well it surely couldn't have been diseased with dog-eat-dog animals on it if it was "GOOD".

Then mankind is said to have fallen from grace and his fall from grace brought death and all manner of imperfections into the world. Thorns grew on plants, and the God cursed women with sorrowful childbirth to punish Eve.

Scientific observations have revealed to us that animals have been eating each other long before mankind appeared on the planet. Plants had thorns long before mankind appeared on the planet. And childbirth is obviously even painful for animals, not just human females.

So scientific observations apparently conflict with these myths.

However, rather than everyone doing the obviously thing, like they did with Zeus, and just put these fables on the shelf marked FICTION, instead they passionately stand behind these stories and renounce scientific observations as being the less dependable information!



So it's really the religious zealots who that are attacking the credibility of scientific observations in the hopes of keeping their outrageous Hebrew fables alive.

They are hell-bend on keeping these fables off the shelves marked FICTION!

And they will totally renounce all of scientific knowledge if that's what's required to defend the Hebrew fables as "non-fiction".

The story of the fall from grace does not hold up to scientific observations of the world.

The story of a great world-wide flood during a time when humans were living and had civilizations of cities, doesn't hold up to scientific knowledge.

The idea that a benevolent God would be associated with blood sacrifices to atone sins doesn't hold up to common sense!

The idea that a benevolent God would curse all women with painful childbirth as a form of punishment doesn't hold up to common sense!

These stories don't even make common sense, much less fit in with scientific knowledge.

So who's out to discredit whom?

I don't think science is out to discredit religion.

These religions have no choice but to reject the knowledge of science because that's the ONLY WAY that they can keep their fables from being recognized as just that, fables - "Total FICTION".

When are people going to let go of these ancient superstitious myths of gods that are appeased by blood sacrifices and curse women with sorrowful childbirth as a form of punishment for having fallen from grace, etc.

They are myths.

Plain an simple.

It's obvious.

When are people going to accept this?

They have absolutely no more merit than Greek Mythology.

None, zip, zilch, nada.

They have no merit scientifically, nor even in terms of common sense.

They are the superstitious fables of men.

This is beyond me. It's like, it is impossible for modern culture to regard their religion as such. One civilization religion in their time, is the next generation entertainment.

The one constant in religious bigotry is always the presence of implied violence. Hardly the recipe for a meaningful existence, either-- going around proclaiming that "My God could destroy you like an insect."

Just another reason I sorely doubt the existence of a god tied with religions-- there's no humanity to them unless its in the form of bribery to wrangle favors from him/her/it.


-Kerry O.

true. science does not even consider religion. there is simply no evidence to subject to the strict scrutiny of the scientific method.

true. science does not even consider religion. there is simply no evidence to subject to the strict scrutiny of the scientific method. that's what science is all about. not to prove a theory, can't be done, but to disprove a theory. scientists love to one up each other. a scientist floats a hypothesis, finds evidence to raise his hypotesis to the level of a theory and then he and other scientists put the theory to the test by subjecting the evidence to the method. if it passes the test, the theory stands valid. if not, it's disproved or modified to support the new findings. the big bang time line has been modified to the tune of more than a billion years. newton's law was the gold standard in physics and it too has been modified. but no theory can ever be proved.

Just because it piqued my curiosity, I have read this forum. I will add that animals aren't as unhuman as some might think. Many of them mate for life, certain species of insects such as ants and bees do build colonies and work together to sustain said colony or city as some might view it, but they do it without all the red tape that humans have made. They don't require building permits to build nor do they require an actual marriage in order to produce offspring.
They manage to go with their lives without wars, without hate, without crime, so really who has it better?

Humans or animals?

Thus far i would say the animals have it better, they can exist without religion or government to make their rules.

As far as having meaning in life, why do you have to have meaning? Can't you just live life? I don't need meaning to my life to make my life meaningful. If I have made someone smile, or brightened someones day, or helped someone in a bad situation then I think i have had a good day.

Animals don't have it better than humans unless you believe the saying that ignorance is bliss.

We want bliss, but do we want ignorance?

Being sentient and self aware is what being human is all about. Compared to a dog, a human is like a God. My dog worships the ground I walk on.

What is 42?

The answer to "life, the universe, and everything"...

http://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?p=hitchhiker%27s+guide+to+the+universe+the+answer+to+everything+youtube

That is true, but at the same time, animals don't go around with their human proclaiming to all other animals that if they don't live their life a certain way their human is going to destry them, or send them to live in a lifetime of hell.

Animals don't know racism, they don't know hatred or prejudice. They only know instinct and love and in some cases fear.

For as long as i can remember, christianity has disliked something. never satisfied with how things are. When they finish attacking one thing they dislike they move on to the next. It's kinda funny when you think about it, christianity was persecuted when it started, it became a huge religion....and now who is doing the persecuting?

I can never be a christian as I do not feel the same way about things as they do. I do not believe that being gay is a sin, I do not believe that marriage is a necessity in order to raise a stable family (my mom raised 3 kids just fine without ever getting married). I will never pretend to be something I am not just to make religion happy, I am gay, I am proud to be gay, I am not going to hide it and either abstain from what makes me happy or have a girlfriend and eventually kids just cuz some religion says thats the way it should be.

I live a good life, I don't do anything that could be considered bad. I have a boyfriend whom I love to death. He came into my life when I needed someone. When I die, IF there is a heaven or some god figure (I'm spiritual but not religious)I will answer to him/her, not to some self proclaimed follower that only thinks they know what their deity wants.

As long as I can remember, man has disliked things and thought he knew best until he learned more.


Religion, or lack of, does not make human beings any more or less 'tolerant' of things or people. If so, the two sides of the story would be

non religous would be tolerant and understanding of the religious beliefs and points of views (even if they disagree with them)


and religious would be tolerant and understanding of the non religious beliefs and points of views (even if they disagree with them)


but as it stand, the religious have beliefs of what is healthy and unhealthy for the salvation or soul of humans which they often try to convince eeople that this view is more enlightened than others(even when others dont welcome it)



and non religious have beliefs of what is good or bad in general , usually leaning toward an idea that anything that isnt bad is good and shouldnt be viewed or called otherwise,,,and they try to convince people this view is more enlightened than others(even when others dont welcome it)