Religion

[Corgatha Taldorthar]

Born Jewish, not tremendously observant, but reasonably studied. Follow Rambam's school of theology, if that means anything to anyone. I now a little bit about other relgions, but I tend not to step into things if it doesn't directly brush on Judaism. To be honest, I'm not particularly curious about too many others. (Even then, it tends to be along intersections of Judaism).


Vidar, I don't mean to offend with this question, but if you're so anti-religious, why did you take a Norse God as a moniker?

[Vidar]

Now as far as people wondering why the world is so bad if God is so loving, you must really study to understand that.  It all came down to choice and why Lucifer became Satan.  The war in heaven was a battle of universal ideology: law and order vs anarchy and chaos.  This was not an easy battle.  Don't forget that Satan drew 1/3 of the host of heaven with him, a large percentage of beings which were (as far as we are told) eternal and vastly intelligent, which means his arguments must have been incredibly compelling and cleverly crafted!  This world, and perhaps others.   I highly doubt the 1/3 of all the host of heaven referred only to angelic entities.  Perhaps a full third of the universe followed Satan.  But that's only conjecture.  In any case, the result was that Satan was cast down and imprisoned here, according to the Bible.  The Garden of Eden, whether a real fact or only symbolism, demonstrated the beginning of a proof of concept case:  what would become of a world which chose Satan's way.  With 1/3 of the universe already following Satan and perhaps a good portion of the rest wondering, there had to be a test to put doubt to rest forever.  The test would be horrible, obviously, but with a universe at stake, it seems to have become the old adage "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".  And even then, God gave us a way out, by making a portion of his own being mortal to satisfy the letter of His law that death is the punishment for sin.  Basically, God, being omniscient, fit that little loophole into the framework for the disaster that was coming.

Anyone read about my comment about religions postulating stuff about the supernatural earlier in this thread? This is one example of what I was talking about.
I don't think you are lying (in the sense of willingly distorting the truth), but rather that you are sincere in your beliefs.
I also think that your beliefs are completely unfounded, and that any of these very specific claims about the supernatural (God, Satan, angels, heaven, a war in heaven between the armies of god and the forces of Satan)  need a hell of a lot of evidence before I would even consider them possible. Just for clarity, the interpretations of the bible that you follow do not count as evidence.
I also like how you first label the notion that 1/3 of the universe follows Satan as mere conjecture, and later on you talk about it as though it is almost fact, and even base further notions on this conjecture.

I have to ask, how do you know this? Not just believe, but actually know.

Atheism, as I see it, is no answer but instead the lack of an answer.  

Atheism is the lack of a belief in god, and as such does not provide ready-made answers to anything. We are left to find the answers by ourselves. Right now, science in by far the best method for finding answers about anything, and I find the answers that science provide far more interesting than anything any religion ever came up with.

And the belief that the only thing important to a person is their own person is the very thing that leads to the demise of society.  A society functions best when all people care about each other.  Self-centeredness leads to apathy which leads to collapse.  It is also an extension of humanity's self-arrogance, the very arrogance that led man to believe he was the center of the entire universe for so many millennia.

That's not atheism, it's a strawman version atheism. I don't know where you got the notion that atheists only care about themselves. Atheists are all different, and there are probably some that only care about themselves and no-one else, but this does not reflect in the vast majority of atheists.
The notion that atheism would lead to the collapse of society is also falsified by Scandinavia, the Netherlands, and Japan, just to name a few largely atheistic nations.
Also, I do believe it was the christian church that stated that earth was at the center of the universe, and that Man was the highest creature upon that earth. It wasn't atheism that led man into thinking that they were the greatest of all creations, it was christianity.

Vidar, I don't mean to offend with this question, but if you're so anti-religious, why did you take a Norse God as a moniker?

No offense taken. It's largely because Norse mythology is awesome, in a completely stupid and primitive way.

[rabid_fox]

Catholic. Irish Catholic, no less. Grr, transubstantiation.

[Janus Whitefurr]

Vidar's comment about Norse mythology makes me want to re-read American Gods.

That is all.

*woosh*

[Tapewolf]

No offense taken. It's largely because Norse mythology is awesome, in a completely stupid and primitive way.

Quite.  It's possible to be interested in a religion without actually believing in it at all.

[lucas marcone]

vidar, just for the record i have reevaluated and even changed my view of my religion(christianity) MANY times throughout the years and i have no reason to belive i am done now.  thats all i have for you for now, ill come back when ive had more time to think about the wording of my stace on everything. also a preemptive "no offence" when i do.



alondro i have to say nicely put, way to make me think there buddah

[Alondro]

I am a member of the Church of Jesus-Christ of Latter-Day Saints aka Mormons...

OH NOES!!! UR TEH ALIENS FROM TEH SIMPSONS!   D:

*One of the Treehouse of Terror episodes... aliens came to Simpsons house to retrieve Maggie, Homer opens door, "Heeelo.. eh.. oh great.  Mormons."

[Fragmaster01]

I doubt I can produce such glorious walls of text as the previous posters have, but nevertheless...
I was raised a Methodist, though over time came to not so much lose the faith, as come to my own interpretation of it. To avoid writing a novel, the thought process was something like this:
1. Doing good things to people is good.
2. If a god or gods exist, and they are good, they want you to do good things to people.
3. Showing praise, or following odd rituals towards a god is nice, but is not doing good to people.
4. Therefore, it is best to live a good life, regardless of your thoughts of the divine.
For reasons unknown, a large amount of religious folk I have met seem to get so caught up in their searching for meaning in the divine, that they forget that even if there is a divine, he/she/they would want you doing good things, and obsessive worship/navel gazing isn't really doing good things. And so, I don't really concern myself with trying to understand divinity or settle for a belief in any one religion, because that doesn't really seem to be productive in the slightest.

[Reese Tora]

this particular thread keeps coming up in the forums I visit...

Anyway, nonpracticing catholic agnostic atheist.

I don't care for organized religion, I don't think anyone who says they know anything about any god has any good basis for such a statement.

What I do believe in is humanity as a whole, and that I, and that of those who have come before me, observe what is real.  Everything else is based on those two assumptions.

What I think about god... god probably doesn't exist, there's no evidence that there is a god, and lots of evidence of an archaeological nature turning up that suggests that most major religions are an invention of man.  So I don't think there is a god, but I leave the possibility open because there is no god shaped hole that I could point to and with certainty say 'If there were a god, god would be here'

[Eibborn]

Anyway, nonpracticing catholic agnostic atheist.

Out of curiosity, Reese Tora, why do you keep Catholic on that list? It seems to contradict the others.

Since then I found ever more cracks in religion. It tends to make claims to know things it can't know, claims to grant abilities that defy the laws of physics to the 'true believer', and never, ever promotes questioning of anything.

You said that you had little knowledge about anything but Christianity, but are you sure that you've properly considered your stance even on that? I think that the New Testament by its very structure demands that you think about it and that you treat what it says not as fact but as human interpretation of events.

Consider the four Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. They do not agree with one another! For example, Mark has Jesus on the cross calling in despair, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" while Luke has him praying for forgiveness for those who crucified him and promising the thief hanging beside him that they will both enter paradise. The other two Gospels don't agree either, although they both take a more moderate route.

So, at what might be the most vital moment in Christianity, we have four different accounts of the Christ's behaviour. If the primary purpose of the religion were to convince and convert people, that would be rather detrimental to the cause! But built deliberately into the structure of the Bible is the requirement that people question the validity of each perspective and make their own decisions. That's why Christianity has so many sects today: no one can look at the Bible and say authoritatively that only they interpret it correctly.

[Vidar]

Since then I found ever more cracks in religion. It tends to make claims to know things it can't know, claims to grant abilities that defy the laws of physics to the 'true believer', and never, ever promotes questioning of anything.

You said that you had little knowledge about anything but Christianity, but are you sure that you've properly considered your stance even on that? I think that the New Testament by its very structure demands that you think about it and that you treat what it says not as fact but as human interpretation of events.

Consider the four Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. They do not agree with one another! For example, Mark has Jesus on the cross calling in despair, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" while Luke has him praying for forgiveness for those who crucified him and promising the thief hanging beside him that they will both enter paradise. The other two Gospels don't agree either, although they both take a more moderate route.

So, at what might be the most vital moment in Christianity, we have four different accounts of the Christ's behaviour. If the primary purpose of the religion were to convince and convert people, that would be rather detrimental to the cause! But built deliberately into the structure of the Bible is the requirement that people question the validity of each perspective and make their own decisions. That's why Christianity has so many sects today: no one can look at the Bible and say authoritatively that only they interpret it correctly.

Are you saying that these internal contradictions, and the fact that the various cults of christianity shard further and further apart because none of them agree on what the bible actually tries to teach, are points in it's favour?

If the bible was actually inspired by god then it wouldn't contain these contradictions, and would instead have a unifying influence, rather than a dividing one. If god had a hand in it, would should expect nothing less. But what I see is the exact opposite.

[Eibborn]

Are you saying that these internal contradictions, and the fact that the various cults of christianity shard further and further apart because none of them agree on what the bible actually tries to teach, are points in it's favour?

That's right.

If the bible was actually inspired by god then it wouldn't contain these contradictions, and would instead have a unifying influence, rather than a dividing one. If god had a hand in it, would should expect nothing less. But what I see is the exact opposite.

I'm not sure why you think that. The Bible may have been inspired by God, but it was written and translated by humans. There isn't even a Gospel of Jesus, which I think would be ideal if God (or the institution of the church) wanted something that could be viewed as beyond question, a text that could be called absolute truth.

[Vidar]

Are you saying that these internal contradictions, and the fact that the various cults of christianity shard further and further apart because none of them agree on what the bible actually tries to teach, are points in it's favour?

That's right.

If the bible was actually inspired by god then it wouldn't contain these contradictions, and would instead have a unifying influence, rather than a dividing one. If god had a hand in it, would should expect nothing less. But what I see is the exact opposite.

I'm not sure why you think that. The Bible may have been inspired by God, but it was written and translated by humans. There isn't even a Gospel of Jesus, which I think would be ideal if God (or the institution of the church) wanted something that could be viewed as beyond question, a text that could be called absolute truth.

If the bible isn't absolute truth, then why follow it religiously as if it were gospel in the first place?
If it's just another set of ideas, then it should be put into the marketplace of ideas, and picked apart until only the truth remains, as is done with every other idea (except religions).
In the marketplace of ideas no holy book can stand against all of science, it's methods, and the knowledge gained through these methods.

[lucas marcone]

Are you saying that these internal contradictions, and the fact that the various cults of christianity shard further and further apart because none of them agree on what the bible actually tries to teach, are points in it's favour?

That's right.

If the bible was actually inspired by god then it wouldn't contain these contradictions, and would instead have a unifying influence, rather than a dividing one. If god had a hand in it, would should expect nothing less. But what I see is the exact opposite.

I'm not sure why you think that. The Bible may have been inspired by God, but it was written and translated by humans. There isn't even a Gospel of Jesus, which I think would be ideal if God (or the institution of the church) wanted something that could be viewed as beyond question, a text that could be called absolute truth.

If the bible isn't absolute truth, then why follow it religiously as if it were gospel in the first place?

If it's just another set of ideas, then it should be put into the marketplace of ideas, and picked apart until only the truth remains, as is done with every other idea (except religions).
In the marketplace of ideas no holy book can stand against all of science, it's methods, and the knowledge gained through these methods.

some people choose not to question the bible and even claim it is all 100% true, these people are free to do so, however i find it far more prudent to look at it and try to disearn the fact from the fables. before you jump on my back with the fable bit i should tell you that i belive certin fables were added to promote good morals. no one man can say they have it all figured out, the best you can do is try your best to understand and then wait it out(till you die) and see where you end up.


i have no idea what you mean about an idea market place, however every idea is picked apart INCLUDING religion, you're proof of that my friend. if you find religion to be ficticious according to science that's your view, and i respect that, i just dont agree.

[Reese Tora]

Anyway, nonpracticing catholic agnostic atheist.

Out of curiosity, Reese Tora, why do you keep Catholic on that list? It seems to contradict the others.

I think it's an important element to how I feel about faith and religion.  Also, Catholicism considers you a member until you are excommunicated.  Granted, I'd have been excommunicated for what I said above, but I havn't so I'm still a member.

I equate it to how there are atheist Jews; they don't believe, but they're still jewish.

[Eibborn]

Reese Tora:

Ah, thanks. I didn't know that some Catholics felt the same way as some Jews do, that it goes beyond just being religion and becomes a more pervasive part of your culture. I probably should have guessed.

If the bible isn't absolute truth, then why follow it religiously as if it were gospel in the first place?
If it's just another set of ideas, then it should be put into the marketplace of ideas, and picked apart until only the truth remains, as is done with every other idea (except religions).
In the marketplace of ideas no holy book can stand against all of science, it's methods, and the knowledge gained through these methods.

It is Gospel. "Good news." The news that Christ has come, died, and risen from the dead. To be quite honest, I think that your experience with fundamentalism has closed your mind to different ways of looking at the Bible. It doesn't have to be pure truth to have meaning. As I said, by the contradictions between each book lampshade its fallibility! Regardless, there is plenty that the Gospels do agree on, or that enough of them agree on that we can guess fairly reasonably.

The Bible is more than just a set of ideas, though. It's the story of a man who was the son of God, caused a bit of a ruckus, and then died horribly only to rise from the dead a few days later. The important part of the whole thing is the message of Jesus, and what the events of his life mean for us.

I'm uncertain where that statement about science and religion came from. It isn't a competition, Vidar.

Incidentally, lucas marcone is right. Every religion has been picked apart and analyzed for as long as it has existed. The problem is that there's no way to know that you have found the 'one truth' that you want, so religion has to be continually reanalyzed and studied by every practitioner until they find what makes the most sense to them.

[Passive]

 

Code Select Expand

[Vidar]

Reese Tora:

Ah, thanks. I didn't know that some Catholics felt the same way as some Jews do, that it goes beyond just being religion and becomes a more pervasive part of your culture. I probably should have guessed.

If the bible isn't absolute truth, then why follow it religiously as if it were gospel in the first place?
If it's just another set of ideas, then it should be put into the marketplace of ideas, and picked apart until only the truth remains, as is done with every other idea (except religions).
In the marketplace of ideas no holy book can stand against all of science, it's methods, and the knowledge gained through these methods.

It is Gospel. "Good news." The news that Christ has come, died, and risen from the dead. To be quite honest, I think that your experience with fundamentalism has closed your mind to different ways of looking at the Bible. It doesn't have to be pure truth to have meaning. As I said, by the contradictions between each book lampshade its fallibility! Regardless, there is plenty that the Gospels do agree on, or that enough of them agree on that we can guess fairly reasonably.

The Bible is more than just a set of ideas, though. It's the story of a man who was the son of God, caused a bit of a ruckus, and then died horribly only to rise from the dead a few days later. The important part of the whole thing is the message of Jesus, and what the events of his life mean for us.

I'm uncertain where that statement about science and religion came from. It isn't a competition, Vidar.

Incidentally, lucas marcone is right. Every religion has been picked apart and analyzed for as long as it has existed. The problem is that there's no way to know that you have found the 'one truth' that you want, so religion has to be continually reanalyzed and studied by every practitioner until they find what makes the most sense to them.

I don't know where you see religion getting picked apart. When you go to church there will always be a preacher who asserts the stories in the bible as truth, and critical thought and skepticism on the subject are unfortunately not exactly high in the agenda, and this is where most people get their religious ideas from (incombination with growing up in a religious family).

Also, I find the story of Jesus somewhat non-sensical. Why does god need to have his own son tortured and killed before he can forgive everyone for not being good enough (even though he supposedly created humans in the first palce, flaws and all)? Can't he just forgive without a blood sacrifice? Wouldn't the life of Jesus have a much greater positive impact if he'd been teaching for more than just 3 years? These are just a few questions that pop up in my head right now. I'm sure other people have more pointed questions to ask.
On top of that, the bible is the only source we have of Jesus. He's never mentioned in any of the other writings we have of that time. This leads me to believe the gospels are fiction, and not truth.
As for the message of Jesus, he had some good things to say (like in the sermon on the mount), but they where hardly super-human in their wisdom. He also did some things I find rather less inspiring, such as cursing a fig tree to death for not bearing figs out of season (a story which I interpret as Jesus demonstrating: "Do as I say, or else...").

As for your statement that religion and science are not in competition: Tell it to the Texas Board of Education.
After trying to undermine the childrens education of biology (evolution), they are now going after the age of the universe.
Science anfd religion are most definitly in competition.

[Alondro]

I see that science requires pretty much the same amount of faith as religion these days if one is to look at the 'beginning'.  Thie Big Bang theory has several enormous gaping holes in it, the primary one being that in order for the initial expansion of space to have exceeded the speed of light by so many times, the little teensy cosmic seed had to expand into... nothing.  nto absolutely nothing.  I'm not talking about empty space, I'm talking about no space.  There had to be nothing outside the boundary of that little infinitely dense dot.  So, what are the properties of nothing?  Can such nothingness even exist?  How do we create an equation to explain a complete void, with no quantum characteristics, no energy whatsoever.  Even in the tiny voids we can create, virtual particles pop up constantly.  Our artificial voids are not even true voids.  We can't simulate an absolute voids, and we can't even theoretically describe one.  Yet for the Big bang to work, it had to be.  to believe in the Big bang, we must believe in something for which there is no direct evidence, and th only indirect evidence is that the Big Bang required it in order to happen as it seems to have done.  The universe-dot itself has problems, since there is no physics that can adequately describe it or its properties, or even how such a dot would even begin to expand in the first place, for what could possibly be a trigger?  It's own internal gravity would also be infinite, since by the 'laws' of physics we're aware of, it would have had to be a super-singularity.  And big singularities tend not to just go poof all of a sudden.  In fact, physics as we know it forbids it.  And what force would be powerful enough to overcome that?

Physics is at war with itself, with proponents of various theories calling those who believe in others fools and Philistines, yet none can manage to find the fundamental properties of the universe that allow fo the creation of the universe by their own theories. 

And then you have dark matter and dark energy, as mentioned previously.  These two substances (if dark energy can even be thought of as a substance, since it may not be real energy, but an effect of certain properties of accelerating space-time stretching the fabric of the universe and other gobbletygook like that) make up more than 90% of the universe.  Yet other than the relatively minor observations we can make about their effects on the matter and energy we can analyze, we know nothing about them.  Big Bang physics doesn't even predict dark energy, yet we measure and know it must be.  Yet another hole in the theory, in that it does not predict a major property of the universe.  Nutrinos were thought to be dark matter for a time, but then it was found that even their abundance and the discovery that they did carry just the tiniest whisper of mass fell far short of filling the gaping hole in universal mass calculations. 

Whatever dark matter and dark energy turn out to be, they are certain to require yet another rethinking of the origins of the universe, because they simply don't fit the theories that exist.

Quantum entanglement is another strange case.  It can be said that it doesn't violate relativity because it doesn't allow for information transfer faster than light, but as yet no mechanism has been able to interpret how particle pairs separated by vast distances can communicate an effect on one to the other instantaneously.  String theory may allow it through the tiny wormholes it postulates strings can create, but then string theory itself is under attack constantly for its short-comings.

From my experience, scientists can be just as arrogant, just as self-righteous, just as cruel as the worst of the religious fundamentalists, and hold onto their theories as religious dogma even when the evidence proves otherwise.  The problem with all belief, religious or scientific, is that inevitably, the humans involved turn from seeking the absolute truth to pronouncing their own beliefs and theories as the One Truth, and then persecuting all who will not bend to them.

So, I choose to believe in God because I see that the Commandments and values of true Christianity make sense and if followed lead to peace, order, happiness, and equality for all:  for Jesus showed how we ought to treat one another, reaching across castes, touching the untouchable, breaking all the excessive religious taboos the Jewish religious leaders had inflicted upon themselves to try be become more holy, though instead they made themselves hypocrites.  If a system of beliefs can lead to greater good, then it seems to me to be a sensible system.

[Lysander]

Once again I agree with Alondro.

Also, I find the story of Jesus somewhat non-sensical. Why does god need to have his own son tortured and killed before he can forgive everyone for not being good enough (even though he supposedly created humans in the first palce, flaws and all)? Can't he just forgive without a blood sacrifice? Wouldn't the life of Jesus have a much greater positive impact if he'd been teaching for more than just 3 years? These are just a few questions that pop up in my head right now. I'm sure other people have more pointed questions to ask.
On top of that, the bible is the only source we have of Jesus. He's never mentioned in any of the other writings we have of that time. This leads me to believe the gospels are fiction, and not truth.

As far as the torturing goes much of that has to do with the symbolism of everything involved even though those that put him through the torture did all those things intending to mock Jesus. Most of his suffering came through the Garden of Gethsemane when he bled from every pore where it is said that he suffered everything for the world. Every pain anyone has ever or will ever feel both physical or mental, felt everyone's emotions both good and bad including things like guilt which would have otherwise been impossible as he never did anything to feel guilty for living a sinless life. He did all this that he might be able to be the perfect judge and relieve the pains of sin or come to someone in spirit in times of need to help that someone bear the burden of whatever the problem might be. He knows what it's like when someone stubs a toe or broke of with the love of their life or lost a loved one. He also went through everything to fulfill prophesy. As for requring a blood sacrifice you'd probably need to believe that the animal sacrifices in the Bible are worth something. Having committed no sin whatsoever Jesus Christ was the only human worthy to be a sacrifice, and being God's son is part of the reason that his blood can be an infinite sacrifice for everyone before, during, and after his life. This works because even being human he was also part god making his sacrifice a godly sacrifice which is therefore an eternal sacrifice. When there is sin justice is required, but through the atonement made by Jesus mercy can take the place of that judgment as the sin has already been paid for; the person who committed whatever sin needs to accept that before forgiveness and mercy can be given. All this info can be found in various parts of the Bible, but that doesn't make it true. This all probably sounds like something crazy to you and I do have reasons for believe it all myself, none of them would be of any worth to you.

There may only be a few years of Jesus' life actually written about but supposing he was able to do all he did I'd think it safe to believe that he did much, much more than was written about him.

And as for other scripture that was written around the time of Christ I'm sure there are many books that haven't been found or translated like other gospels written by other apostles. Also the Book of Mormon is reputed by some to be and ancient record of scripture written during bible times, and people therein see Jesus.

I don't believe the Bible to be completely true as it was translated a great many times and humans make mistakes even when directed by God. Plus various parts where it is written that "God repented of his sin" don't really shout truth as God can't sin. But that doesn't mean there isn't truth in the bible.   

[lucas marcone]

Reese Tora:

Ah, thanks. I didn't know that some Catholics felt the same way as some Jews do, that it goes beyond just being religion and becomes a more pervasive part of your culture. I probably should have guessed.

If the bible isn't absolute truth, then why follow it religiously as if it were gospel in the first place?
If it's just another set of ideas, then it should be put into the marketplace of ideas, and picked apart until only the truth remains, as is done with every other idea (except religions).
In the marketplace of ideas no holy book can stand against all of science, it's methods, and the knowledge gained through these methods.

It is Gospel. "Good news." The news that Christ has come, died, and risen from the dead. To be quite honest, I think that your experience with fundamentalism has closed your mind to different ways of looking at the Bible. It doesn't have to be pure truth to have meaning. As I said, by the contradictions between each book lampshade its fallibility! Regardless, there is plenty that the Gospels do agree on, or that enough of them agree on that we can guess fairly reasonably.

The Bible is more than just a set of ideas, though. It's the story of a man who was the son of God, caused a bit of a ruckus, and then died horribly only to rise from the dead a few days later. The important part of the whole thing is the message of Jesus, and what the events of his life mean for us.

I'm uncertain where that statement about science and religion came from. It isn't a competition, Vidar.

Incidentally, lucas marcone is right. Every religion has been picked apart and analyzed for as long as it has existed. The problem is that there's no way to know that you have found the 'one truth' that you want, so religion has to be continually reanalyzed and studied by every practitioner until they find what makes the most sense to them.

I don't know where you see religion getting picked apart. When you go to church there will always be a preacher who asserts the stories in the bible as truth, and critical thought and skepticism on the subject are unfortunately not exactly high in the agenda, and this is where most people get their religious ideas from (incombination with growing up in a religious family).

you seem to be ignoring the fact that religious people dont spend their entire lives inside their respective churches, and even if that were the case the point is people like you and other "men of science" disect religion and every other idea apart like a toad.

[Vidar]

I see that science requires pretty much the same amount of faith as religion these days if one is to look at the 'beginning'. 

No it doesn't. Science doesn't allow faith.

Thie Big Bang theory has several enormous gaping holes in it,

Argument from ignorance. And a complete misrepresentation of science. No theory is ever 'finished' or 'proven', theories are continuously being refined with new observational facts and testing. Only an arrogant fool could ever claim to have 'perfect knowledge of everything', someone who never questions anything.

the primary one being that in order for the initial expansion of space to have exceeded the speed of light by so many times,

Fallacy. The expansion rate of space is not expressed as a velocity, but a velocity per distance.

the little teensy cosmic seed had to expand into... nothing.  nto absolutely nothing.  I'm not talking about empty space, I'm talking about no space. 

Non sequitur. It cannot be measured what lies 'outside' the universe , or even if such a question makes sense. Maybe we're part of a multiverse. What difference does it make?

There had to be nothing outside the boundary of that little infinitely dense dot.  So, what are the properties of nothing?  Can such nothingness even exist?  How do we create an equation to explain a complete void, with no quantum characteristics, no energy whatsoever.  Even in the tiny voids we can create, virtual particles pop up constantly.  Our artificial voids are not even true voids.  We can't simulate an absolute voids, and we can't even theoretically describe one. 

Straw man argument. This is a description of vacuum in existing space, not in the absence of space.

Yet for the Big bang to work, it had to be. 

Nonsense.

to believe in the Big bang, we must believe in something for which there is no direct evidence, and th only indirect evidence is that the Big Bang required it in order to happen as it seems to have done. 

A misreprentation of the big bang theory. The big bang theory states that space expanded from a highly dense state to the present state. Nothing more, nothing less. And there's very convincing observational evidence for it. For instance, the theory correctly predicted the cosmic background radiation. Not to mention redshift.
And if you think the universe doesn't expand, then answer this: why haven't all galaxies collided due to their mutual gravitation?

The universe-dot itself has problems, since there is no physics that can adequately describe it or its properties,

The universe didn't start as a singularity. A singularity is predicted by general relativity, but quantum effects need to be taken into account. Before the Planck Epoch, a theory of quantum gravity is needed. All the comments about infinities have no meaning.

or even how such a dot would even begin to expand in the first place, for what could possibly be a trigger? 

That follows from the Einstein Equation. A stationary unverse is unstable. Remember "Einstein biggest blunder"? See also my remark on the collision of galaxies.

It's own internal gravity would also be infinite, since by the 'laws' of physics we're aware of, it would have had to be a super-singularity.  And big singularities tend not to just go poof all of a sudden.  In fact, physics as we know it forbids it.  And what force would be powerful enough to overcome that?

Several fallacies. As I said, the universe didn't start as a singularity. Also, nobody says it "poofed into existence". It just was once in a highly dense state. Maybe from the contraction of a previous universe. Maybe as result of a collision of branes, as some M-theorists think. Without evidence, there's only speculation.
And third: 'physics as we know it forbids it'? Do you refer to conservation of energy? Because earlier you talked about vacuum fluctuations, which do violate the conservation of energy. Also, some speculate that the total energy of the universe is zero.

Physics is at war with itself, with proponents of various theories calling those who believe in others fools and Philistines,

Complete bullshit. Scientists debate, that's how progress is made. Don't like debates? Then you're dogmatic.

yet none can manage to find the fundamental properties of the universe that allow fo the creation of the universe by their own theories. 

Argument from ignorance again. Gee, we don't know everything, let's stop reasoning altogether...

And then you have dark matter and dark energy, as mentioned previously.  These two substances (if dark energy can even be thought of as a substance, since it may not be real energy, but an effect of certain properties of accelerating space-time stretching the fabric of the universe and other gobbletygook like that) make up more than 90% of the universe.  Yet other than the relatively minor observations we can make about their effects on the matter and energy we can analyze, we know nothing about them. 

Minor observations? And the characteristics of dark matter and dark energy are better and better understood. About dark energy: you already referred to vacuum fluctuations!

Big Bang physics doesn't even predict dark energy,

So? It's not supposed to. Big Bang physics deals with the properties of space-time.

yet we measure and know it must be.  Yet another hole in the theory, in that it does not predict a major property of the universe.  Nutrinos were thought to be dark matter for a time, but then it was found that even their abundance and the discovery that they did carry just the tiniest whisper of mass fell far short of filling the gaping hole in universal mass calculations. 

Whatever dark matter and dark energy turn out to be, they are certain to require yet another rethinking of the origins of the universe, because they simply don't fit the theories that exist.

Same answer as above. And hey, when we'll finally understand dark matter and dark energy, our knowledge has increased again! You oppose this? Be thankful to scientists who discover all these fascinating things. Without them, you wouldn't even know all of this existed in the first place!

Quantum entanglement is another strange case.  It can be said that it doesn't violate relativity because it doesn't allow for information transfer faster than light, but as yet no mechanism has been able to interpret how particle pairs separated by vast distances can communicate an effect on one to the other instantaneously.  String theory may allow it through the tiny wormholes it postulates strings can create, but then string theory itself is under attack constantly for its short-comings.

More argument from ignorance. See answer above.

From my experience, scientists can be just as arrogant, just as self-righteous, just as cruel as the worst of the religious fundamentalists,

Your personal opinions are meaningless. Attacking scientists is meaningless. Adress the scientific theories or the observational evidence, if you can.

and hold onto their theories as religious dogma even when the evidence proves otherwise. 

Nonsensical. Theories are revised and improved as new observations are made. No scientist holds dogmatically to Newtonian physics instead of relativity, does he? Is the final word written on the big bang theory? Of course not. Does that make it invalid? Of course not. It is based on observational evidence, which won't magically disappear in the future.

The problem with all belief, religious or scientific, is that inevitably, the humans involved turn from seeking the absolute truth to pronouncing their own beliefs and theories as the One Truth, and then persecuting all who will not bend to them.

Unlike religion, science is based on observational evidence.

So, I choose to believe in God because I see that the Commandments and values of true Christianity make sense and if followed lead to peace, order, happiness, and equality for all:  for Jesus showed how we ought to treat one another, reaching across castes, touching the untouchable, breaking all the excessive religious taboos the Jewish religious leaders had inflicted upon themselves to try be become more holy, though instead they made themselves hypocrites.  If a system of beliefs can lead to greater good, then it seems to me to be a sensible system.

And what the hell does that have to do with physics???
Many scientists are christian. Heck, the father of the big bang theory, George Lemaitre, was a priest.
So, you mention several discoveries made by scientists, attack them for not explaning everything, and then jump to religion because of the morals it teaches?

<quote pyramid>

you seem to be ignoring the fact that religious people dont spend their entire lives inside their respective churches, and even if that were the case the point is people like you and other "men of science" disect religion and every other idea apart like a toad.

If you want to get to the truth, whatever it may be, you do need to dissect every idea, and test it against the observable reality. Are you saying that religion should not be picked apart and have it's flaws exposed?

[Eibborn]

I don't know where you see religion getting picked apart. When you go to church there will always be a preacher who asserts the stories in the bible as truth, and critical thought and skepticism on the subject are unfortunately not exactly high in the agenda, and this is where most people get their religious ideas from (incombination with growing up in a religious family).

Also, I find the story of Jesus somewhat non-sensical. Why does god need to have his own son tortured and killed before he can forgive everyone for not being good enough (even though he supposedly created humans in the first palce, flaws and all)? Can't he just forgive without a blood sacrifice? Wouldn't the life of Jesus have a much greater positive impact if he'd been teaching for more than just 3 years? These are just a few questions that pop up in my head right now. I'm sure other people have more pointed questions to ask.
On top of that, the bible is the only source we have of Jesus. He's never mentioned in any of the other writings we have of that time. This leads me to believe the gospels are fiction, and not truth.
As for the message of Jesus, he had some good things to say (like in the sermon on the mount), but they where hardly super-human in their wisdom. He also did some things I find rather less inspiring, such as cursing a fig tree to death for not bearing figs out of season (a story which I interpret as Jesus demonstrating: "Do as I say, or else...").

As for your statement that religion and science are not in competition: Tell it to the Texas Board of Education.
After trying to undermine the childrens education of biology (evolution), they are now going after the age of the universe.
Science anfd religion are most definitly in competition.

...I wonder if we have different ideas of what 'picked apart' means. When I use that term, I mean 'examined closely.' You?

People, Christians more than anyone, have been asking those questions since Saint Peter.* I recommend looking up the names Origen and Anselm of Canterbury for a few early theories that have lasted and been used as a basis for later ideas. I'll tell you straight out that I can't answer all of those questions for you. I'm neither a historian nor a theologian; I don't know why Jesus died on the date that he did. If you want, I don't mind offering my thoughts on most of those points.

As for the Bible being the only evidence of Christ's existence, both of my Religious Studies textbooks reject the idea rather firmly. It seems irrational to assume that Jesus didn't exist simply because people who had no reason to write about him didn't do so, while the people who did have reason to did!

Well, that's one interpretation of that parable. Not one that I agree with, admittedly, but I couldn't possibly prove that you're wrong.

Oh for Pete's sake, you're switching competitions on me! In the context of your original statement (which, you must admit, was rather broad), religion and science aren't in competition. As for this, please keep in mind that a few fundamentalists =! all of Christianity, much less all of religion. You'll find more Christians who disagree with those beliefs than who agree, I think. You would do better to say, "Some aspects of science and some aspects of religion disagree," which I agree with absolutely.

*EDIT: That should have been Saint Paul, not Saint Peter. Kind of late now, but oh well...

[lucas marcone]

<quote pyramid>

you seem to be ignoring the fact that religious people dont spend their entire lives inside their respective churches, and even if that were the case the point is people like you and other "men of science" disect religion and every other idea apart like a toad.

If you want to get to the truth, whatever it may be, you do need to dissect every idea, and test it against the observable reality. Are you saying that religion should not be picked apart and have it's flaws exposed?

you misunderstand, im not argueing the fact flaws shouldnt be exposed, and they should, i am agueing the fact that you keep saying religion is immune to scrutiny. its not, MANY people scrutinize it and yet you seem turn a bind eye to everyone picking it to death, including yourself.

edit: on the subject of the bigh bang, law of conservaion of matter states rather clearly matter cannot be destroied nor CREATED, so how did all the matter the came from the big bang come about?

[Vidar]

edit: on the subject of the bigh bang, law of conservaion of matter states rather clearly matter cannot be destroied nor CREATED, so how did all the matter the came from the big bang come about?

Nobody knows yet. We sort of know what happened after one Planck time after the big bang, and all the building blocks of matter where already present at that time. To know what happened before that, you need a unified theory of quantum gravity. We don't have it yet, but physicists are hard at work trying to find it. That's one reason why the LHC was built.