# What is the origin of the universe? Spacetime itself and all the mass-energy in it were created in the Big Bang some 15 billion years ago. Humans are beginning to understand how the laws of physics allowed for the Big Bang to happen, and are even proposing reasons why the laws of physics have to be as they are. However, it may not be knowable why the laws of physics exist at all.

# What is the mechanism of the universe? The universe consists of fermions and bosons interacting through gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. Humans can accurately model those interactions using General Relativity and the Standard Model of particle physics, and m...

# What is the origin of the universe? Spacetime itself and all the mass-energy in it were created in the Big Bang some 15 billion years ago. Humans are beginning to understand how the laws of physics allowed for the Big Bang to happen, and are even proposing reasons why the laws of physics have to be as they are. However, it may not be knowable why the laws of physics exist at all.

# What is the mechanism of the universe? The universe consists of fermions and bosons interacting through gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. Humans can accurately model those interactions using General Relativity and the Standard Model of particle physics, and may be close to combining these two theories into a unified theory of the universe.

# What is the fate of the universe? There appears not to be enough mass in the universe to halt its (perhaps asymptotic) expansion into a vast emptiness growing steadily colder and darker.

# What is the origin of life? Life based on ribonucleic and amino acids arose on Earth four billion years ago as a result of auto-catalytic chemical processes of increasing complexity. Humans are only beginning to understand the details of these processes and how improbable they might have been.

# What is the mechanism of life? Life on earth operates according to the basic principles of biochemistry and develops through evolution by natural selection. Humans will long be filling in the details of molecular and cellular biology and tracing the history of evolution.

# What is the fate of life? Due to senescence or chance, individual organisms eventually die; and d...

# What is the origin of life? Life based on ribonucleic and amino acids arose on Earth four billion years ago as a result of auto-catalytic chemical processes of increasing complexity. Humans are only beginning to understand the details of these processes and how improbable they might have been.

# What is the mechanism of life? Life on earth operates according to the basic principles of biochemistry and develops through evolution by natural selection. Humans will long be filling in the details of molecular and cellular biology and tracing the history of evolution.

# What is the fate of life? Due to senescence or chance, individual organisms eventually die; and due to environment or chance, species usually evolve or become extinct. Humans are beginning to understand and protect the ecosystem of Earth, and are investigating possible ecosystems elsewhere.

* What is the origin of mind? Intelligence developed slowly over the last million or two years among social post-arboreal omnivorous tool-using bipedal primates, resulting in language by 50 Kya or 100 Kya. Humans are investigating precisely how intelligence evolved on earth, how improbable it was, and whether it has arisen elsewhere. Humans may never develop definitive answers to these questions.

* What is the mechanism of mind? The human mind is the result of electrochemical neural processes in the human brain, and artificial minds seem producible from simpler functional components. Detailed understanding of mental mechanisms will require lots of engineering and ...

* What is the origin of mind? Intelligence developed slowly over the last million or two years among social post-arboreal omnivorous tool-using bipedal primates, resulting in language by 50 Kya or 100 Kya. Humans are investigating precisely how intelligence evolved on earth, how improbable it was, and whether it has arisen elsewhere. Humans may never develop definitive answers to these questions.

* What is the mechanism of mind? The human mind is the result of electrochemical neural processes in the human brain, and artificial minds seem producible from simpler functional components. Detailed understanding of mental mechanisms will require lots of engineering and even more reverse-engineering.

* What is the fate of mind? The human mind and personality cease to exist when the human brain ceases to function. Humans may someday be able to extend the function of the brain indefinitely.

A real athiest. Doesn't believe in religion (Non-theist). If truly atheist, would not have the need to bunk or debunk any religion because it would not matter. When one feels they must debunk a religion they have a need to prove their own beliefs and that makes them a theist of something.
True atheism (a complete belief in no religion at all) deals with reality and facts, dismisses conjecture and forms no associations in the bonds of faith.
If you feel you need to argue religious beliefs you are not atheist but more of a reserved theist with doubts.
You won't find a true atheist in a religious disscussion.
It is a non-issue not worthy of thought or prose. You likely wouldn't find many at ...

A real athiest. Doesn't believe in religion (Non-theist). If truly atheist, would not have the need to bunk or debunk any religion because it would not matter. When one feels they must debunk a religion they have a need to prove their own beliefs and that makes them a theist of something.
True atheism (a complete belief in no religion at all) deals with reality and facts, dismisses conjecture and forms no associations in the bonds of faith.
If you feel you need to argue religious beliefs you are not atheist but more of a reserved theist with doubts.
You won't find a true atheist in a religious disscussion.
It is a non-issue not worthy of thought or prose. You likely wouldn't find many at snopes or other debunking sites because they operate in a factual, reality state of mind. They don't name inanitimate objects, talk to their food or read fiction. They operate on need, solution, action, result. Their personalities are dry and not too creative unless it is a logical conclusion. They are extremely organized and orderly in their affairs and they can see the reality of objects they look at.
TRUE Athiests are few and far between.
Then there is the rest of us. Wishing, hoping and praying that God touches their soul. The passionate self-appointed full declaration atheists feel need to prove something they cannot prove or disprove but they like to argue about it till the cows come home. Theists that are not strong in their faith will argue with them even after the cows come home because they feel threatened by the discussions and accusations that they cannot prove or disprove. A true theist is absolutely complete with their faith and feel no need to defend it.
Then there is the rest of us -somewhere in the middle.

What do you mean not to confuse religion with sets of beliefs? Any religion is like any science dedicated to the study of an object (divinity) and just like any science, there are some who have made mistakes (intentional or not).

Religion is not like science. It does not study anything, it simply proposes a set dogma of belief, and pre-made answer to the universe around us based on the belief. And I said that you don't confuse the existence of the divine with a believe in the divine. I mean people believe in a lot of things that are not true, or real. These belief systems exist because people need them, and in no way shape or form prove or disprove the existence of a divine being or beings....

What do you mean not to confuse religion with sets of beliefs? Any religion is like any science dedicated to the study of an object (divinity) and just like any science, there are some who have made mistakes (intentional or not).

Religion is not like science. It does not study anything, it simply proposes a set dogma of belief, and pre-made answer to the universe around us based on the belief. And I said that you don't confuse the existence of the divine with a believe in the divine. I mean people believe in a lot of things that are not true, or real. These belief systems exist because people need them, and in no way shape or form prove or disprove the existence of a divine being or beings.

As for Atheist not getting involved in religious discussion would it be so that religion where not imposed, explained and enmeshed in our daily lives. A discussion of religion must include the question of whether or not that which is worshiped exist. Would be a pointless exercise otherwise. I don't believe in Santa Claus, but I certainly discuss the impact of his image in our society.

I mean if a worshiper of Thor where to meet a worshiper of Osiris, the fact that one does not believe in the others God makes it so that they can't discuss their beliefs? What about somebody else who believes in neither of them, or follows their dogma.

Again Atheist can and sometimes must discuss religion because of the impact religion has on human existence, which they share.

As for evolution, it has been proven don't be let astray by the word "theory". Gravity is also a "theory". We don't know all of its properties, whether it is a force or merely the effect of matter in the universe, etc you don't see me floating around, now do you? .

Ok. I have hear it said that the big bang theory and evolution can disprove God. However, those 2 theories have more in common with the Bible than what you would think.

1. Big bang theory states that before the bang the world was empty nothingness...kind of like the book of Genesis, Coincidence?

2. evolution pretty much says that Man evolved from the ground up...kinda like in the book of Genesis states that God made man from the ground...whos to say God is not in control of the process?

I find it hard to believe that life spontaneously appeared out of nowhere with out an outside source. I also find it to be more than coincidence that the Earth of all the planets by sheer luck happened to...

Ok. I have hear it said that the big bang theory and evolution can disprove God. However, those 2 theories have more in common with the Bible than what you would think.

1. Big bang theory states that before the bang the world was empty nothingness...kind of like the book of Genesis, Coincidence?

2. evolution pretty much says that Man evolved from the ground up...kinda like in the book of Genesis states that God made man from the ground...whos to say God is not in control of the process?

I find it hard to believe that life spontaneously appeared out of nowhere with out an outside source. I also find it to be more than coincidence that the Earth of all the planets by sheer luck happened to be the lucky little planet that made it.

Somewhere along the line the Earth and all life on Earth got a jump start from an outside source.

Since non of you chicken hearted atheists cannot respond to my logic or explain the elaborate outlandish way that the world came to be.....all on its own I suppose the Question begs to be asked, If there is a God then who should be worshiped? Simple, Jesus, C'mon, out of all the major religions who not only gave but served his worshipers? Jesus Christ, he washed away our sins with his blood (so that everybody who had faith in him is not only promised but guaranteed a spot in heaven no less) , who else died for his worshipers? That's right nobody else. So for all non believers who may read this I have only this to say, If i am wrong when I die I get blissful nothingness, if you are wrong you ...

Since non of you chicken hearted atheists cannot respond to my logic or explain the elaborate outlandish way that the world came to be.....all on its own I suppose the Question begs to be asked, If there is a God then who should be worshiped? Simple, Jesus, C'mon, out of all the major religions who not only gave but served his worshipers? Jesus Christ, he washed away our sins with his blood (so that everybody who had faith in him is not only promised but guaranteed a spot in heaven no less) , who else died for his worshipers? That's right nobody else. So for all non believers who may read this I have only this to say, If i am wrong when I die I get blissful nothingness, if you are wrong you get an eternity of suffering in burning lakes of sulfur. Tell me, which is the safer bet?

That is called Pascal's wager , it has been around for ages and the flawed logic and reasoning behind it has been demonstrated many times.

So when you can come up with an argument a little better than that and can refrain from throwing insults this "chicken hearted atheist" would be happy to debate with you.

As you probably won't bother to read anything from the link above here are just two of the many flaw's in your argument:

How do you know which God to believe in? There are plenty
to choose from, and if you pick the wrong one, you could be in big
trouble (e.g. what if you choose Jesus, but ge...

That is called Pascal's wager , it has been around for ages and the flawed logic and reasoning behind it has been demonstrated many times.

So when you can come up with an argument a little better than that and can refrain from throwing insults this "chicken hearted atheist" would be happy to debate with you.

As you probably won't bother to read anything from the link above here are just two of the many flaw's in your argument:

How do you know which God to believe in? There are plenty
to choose from, and if you pick the wrong one, you could be in big
trouble (e.g. what if you choose Jesus, but get to heaven only to
come face-to-trunk with Ganesh?). This is known as the "Avoiding
the wrong Hell problem". If a dozen people of different religions
came to you with Pascal's Wager, how could you possibly choose between
them? After all, many religions are quite specific that they
are the One True Religion, and not any others. Jesus Christ said "I
am the way, the truth and the light. None shall come to the
Father except through me." [emphasis added] and no doubt
most other religions make similar claims. If a Christian considers
the Wager as strong support for his faith, surely he must accept that
it is equally valid for all other religions when presented to himself?
God is not stupid. Won't He know that you're just trying
to get a free ride into Heaven? How can you sincerely believe in a
God simply out of convenience?
Go on, type "Pascal's wager" into Google and have a look!

By the way which of these qualities does your god have?

Is he benevolent?
omnipotent?
omniscient?

It's just that there are so many gods various deluded people have believed in it's important to know whi

Ok fair enough, to a point. You missed one of my points completely however. That being that of all the gods there are to worship Christ is the only one who died for his followers, he is the only "deity" that actually gave something which is the main difference between him and all other "gods" which is my whole reasoning for choosing Christ as the God that I follow.

I only used the phrase chicken hearted atheist to ruffle feathers and prompt a response to my earlier comment.

Since you seem to be atheist I ask this, does my remark about the earth and all life on earth needing an outside source to get started (assuming that the evolution is 100% accurate) make any sense to you at all? C'mon n...

Ok fair enough, to a point. You missed one of my points completely however. That being that of all the gods there are to worship Christ is the only one who died for his followers, he is the only "deity" that actually gave something which is the main difference between him and all other "gods" which is my whole reasoning for choosing Christ as the God that I follow.

I only used the phrase chicken hearted atheist to ruffle feathers and prompt a response to my earlier comment.

Since you seem to be atheist I ask this, does my remark about the earth and all life on earth needing an outside source to get started (assuming that the evolution is 100% accurate) make any sense to you at all? C'mon no matter what religion either one of us may believe you cannot expect me to believe that life spontaneously appeared.

That said your comment about Pascal's Wager is valid, to a point. I do not believe that by chance the earth is the lucky little planet can support life. Earth has little in common with any of the planets which makes me believe in an outside source. And therein lies the problem. Which outside source? Now I already have explained my faith and why. So If I am wrong about the earth needing an outside source then elaborate, if I am wrong [morally] for being a Christian then elaborate, otherwise there is no need for you pissy attitude toward me.

Even in Christianity there is references to 'Other Worlds'

I don't remember where in the Bible but I remember it is in the Bible. Perhaps someone could look?

As for Spontaneous Life on this planet. I don't believe life is indigeonus to this planet. I believe life has seeded on all the planets but this one is the only one geographically stable enough to allow it to flourish.

As for 'Sacrifice'. It strikes me as odd that a benevolent, merciful and loving God would need any kind of sacrifice. The whole idea of needing a sacrifice offers up nothing but contempt for the whole idea. Is it possible that the whole idea of sacrifice is so religious types can justify the hard realities of life.

As...

Even in Christianity there is references to 'Other Worlds'

I don't remember where in the Bible but I remember it is in the Bible. Perhaps someone could look?

As for Spontaneous Life on this planet. I don't believe life is indigeonus to this planet. I believe life has seeded on all the planets but this one is the only one geographically stable enough to allow it to flourish.

As for 'Sacrifice'. It strikes me as odd that a benevolent, merciful and loving God would need any kind of sacrifice. The whole idea of needing a sacrifice offers up nothing but contempt for the whole idea. Is it possible that the whole idea of sacrifice is so religious types can justify the hard realities of life.

As for God. Perhaps there is a God of the universe. Perhaps God is the universe. Perhaps God is the essence of the Universe. But, what gets me is why would it concern itself with the day to day goings on of the inhabitants of our little insignificant planet?
In the time and scale of the universe we are not even a thought. Our existence in the time of the universe is less than a second if we were to scale its age to one of our years. At the visual range where our galaxy is completely visible our planet is invisible.

Ahh, but see that's the beauty of it all! We have no way of knowing it to the point of it being tangible.

Now don't get the wrong idea about be, i'm not a know-it-all blow hard trying to shove my faith in anyone's face however do you not find it to be loving and merciful to send ones (God) only son do die as a sacrifice for all of our sins?

As for life being seeded in all planets I assume that that you think life itself is not a living organism as much as it is a potential for said living organism to exist. Even in the giant gas planets life could exist...in theory at least. I suppose one would be arrogant to believe that in an infinitely big universe that Earth has the only life...that...

Ahh, but see that's the beauty of it all! We have no way of knowing it to the point of it being tangible.

Now don't get the wrong idea about be, i'm not a know-it-all blow hard trying to shove my faith in anyone's face however do you not find it to be loving and merciful to send ones (God) only son do die as a sacrifice for all of our sins?

As for life being seeded in all planets I assume that that you think life itself is not a living organism as much as it is a potential for said living organism to exist. Even in the giant gas planets life could exist...in theory at least. I suppose one would be arrogant to believe that in an infinitely big universe that Earth has the only life...that said, knowing that all the planets in our solar system started in a similar way which is why it strikes me as something more than chance that earth can support life while all others in the same solar system cannot. It is an ongoing debate, see to some God is a physical being, to others, a spiritual being, to me God is everything from physical matter to spiritual belief. As you have pointed out there is mention in the bible about other worlds....that could be anything considering that the original Hebrew text has been translated several times. Still everything in this world has a beginning including laws of physics. In a perfect vacuum like setting such as space there are no physics in theory because space is absence of matter, physics is how matter interacts with each other. I do not believe all matter in space is timeless with out beginning or end which is why I cannot help but to believe in an outside force. SO we are back to square 1, what outside force to believe in. Personally I think God is everywhere at any 1 time. I also would say it is likely time itself is God (how else could he be all knowing) I also believe until we can !00% understand the universe we cannot 100% understand God and so God remains one big (?). All we have is text written by inspired people.

As you say, according to some bronze aged goat-herder's myths, Jesus died for our sins. But let's think about just how big a sacrifice this really was: Jesus is crucified, a nasty death no doubt but nowhere near as nasty, long and protracted as the deaths God thinks it's perfectly OK to inflict on millions of humans (including children) through disease, starvation, natural disaster etc. What's more he gets his son back in a couple of days and gets to have him with him for eternity - as as an all-powerful being I think he should just be able to stand the suffering, don't you? - not much of a sacrifice.

Also, please explain, is he sacrificing himself (there is only one god in your view I tak...

As you say, according to some bronze aged goat-herder's myths, Jesus died for our sins. But let's think about just how big a sacrifice this really was: Jesus is crucified, a nasty death no doubt but nowhere near as nasty, long and protracted as the deaths God thinks it's perfectly OK to inflict on millions of humans (including children) through disease, starvation, natural disaster etc. What's more he gets his son back in a couple of days and gets to have him with him for eternity - as as an all-powerful being I think he should just be able to stand the suffering, don't you? - not much of a sacrifice.

Also, please explain, is he sacrificing himself (there is only one god in your view I take it) or sacrificing his son - I never did understand this three-in-one-one-in-three bullshit. Now I know people who had real sons/daughters (by that I mean they cared for them for many years, loved them, made sacrifices for them etc) and then had to watch as they lost their sight, then the ability to walk, and eventually die a slow unpleasant death - these parents were there for the child, giving their all for a real son - now THAT'S sacrifice. Try telling them about your loving god's great sacrifice!!

I take it your god is benevolent and all powerful. In which case how do explain the presence of such great god-inflicted suffering. As Epicurus put it:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Why then is there evil?”

JohnWaterman, Adam and Eve should not be dismissed as silly. Perhaps your statement about God letting people suffer holds no water when it is pointed out that mankind disobeyed God's will and chose our fate, this pretty much erases your flawed logic. Yes God is all loving but man chose to disobey, not God refuses to stop all suffering. Furthermore God does not make viruses or tsunamis, for our disobedience we now have to live in nature instead of the Garden of Eden...nature is what happened. Evolution of micro organisms and plate tectonics is what happened. Earth is our punishment.

That said you are wrong about Jesus, it is documented he was a real person who lived under that name. You don'...

JohnWaterman, Adam and Eve should not be dismissed as silly. Perhaps your statement about God letting people suffer holds no water when it is pointed out that mankind disobeyed God's will and chose our fate, this pretty much erases your flawed logic. Yes God is all loving but man chose to disobey, not God refuses to stop all suffering. Furthermore God does not make viruses or tsunamis, for our disobedience we now have to live in nature instead of the Garden of Eden...nature is what happened. Evolution of micro organisms and plate tectonics is what happened. Earth is our punishment.

That said you are wrong about Jesus, it is documented he was a real person who lived under that name. You don't believe in his miracles but that does not change the fact that he did indeed exist.

Look I have no problem debating you but you seem to wanna dismiss me as a crazy "Bible thumper" and leave it at that. Why don't you come up with something a little more original than "if God loves us then why is it possible for us to suffer", If you knew anything about the Biblical history then you'd know why. Don't sit there and preach about something you obviously have no clue about because you are only making an ass out of yourself. I am not offended that you have a differing view or faith (or lack thereof) than me, I am however bothered that you wanna sit there and preach about that which you do not understand, How much sense does it make to have a debate with someone and be so under informed?

Sorry Kat but I'm not sure if you're joking or not. In case you're not

Ebola virus , a member of a family (Filovirus) of viruses that cause
hemorrhagic fevers. The virus, named for the region in Congo (Kinshasa)
where it was first identified in 1976, emerged from the rain forest,
where it survives in as yet unconfirmed hosts, possibly several species
of fruit bats. The virus can be fatal to chimpanzees and gorillas as
well as humans. Three strains of the virus, which are found in Africa,
cause hemorrhagic fever; the fourth, found in the W Pacific, does not

There is a river Ebola in northern Congo.

But there are many viruses to ...

Sorry Kat but I'm not sure if you're joking or not. In case you're not

Ebola virus , a member of a family (Filovirus) of viruses that cause
hemorrhagic fevers. The virus, named for the region in Congo (Kinshasa)
where it was first identified in 1976, emerged from the rain forest,
where it survives in as yet unconfirmed hosts, possibly several species
of fruit bats. The virus can be fatal to chimpanzees and gorillas as
well as humans. Three strains of the virus, which are found in Africa,
cause hemorrhagic fever; the fourth, found in the W Pacific, does not

There is a river Ebola in northern Congo.

But there are many viruses to choose from anyway and natural disasters.
Epicurus' question still remains relevant and unanswered.