The Problem with Religious Moderation

[Zelandakh]

I don't like beer, will you call that a heressy?

I also do not like beer and am an Englishman living in Bavaria - now that is heresy!

 

On topic, I am a non-believer (the term atheist means to me someone who believes in a religion with no god, such as Shintoism) who happens to believe that religion represents a positive force for many believers. Of course it can also be a negative influence but I see no inherent reason for arguing against it other than when this affects the wider society (such as Creationism being taught in schools). People can believe what they want. And they can give their money away to whatever cause they want too. What harm is it doing? In many cases the religious activity helps them feel good about themselves and the world - that can only be a good thing. Does it matter if that is based on a genuine set of miracles or a collection of fairy tales? Not to me.

 

I have my own beliefs, which by and large are grounded in science. Such a grounding in logic helps me. For another person, the knowledge that we can never understand everything would be unsettling, especially when someone else is telling them that everything is already understood. No problem. Yet another person might decide that the writings of a life coach give their life meaning (to use 32's line) and adopt those tenets in much the same way as a religion. Is all good.

 

The issues only come when groups try to impose their ideas on others. I do not see that from the Christians posting here and think it is disrespectful to state categorically that something is untrue that cannot currently (and probably not ever) be proved falsh. I much prefer the line that each lives their own life according to their own beliefs. The difficulties only come when a religious belief impacts on the rights of indivduals or another group or when the rights of a religious belief are impacted by other rules within society (usually coming from a different group). These cases are complex and, in my opinion, much more interesting than any debate on whether the beliefs of a particular religion are correct or not.

[mikeh]

 

 

On topic, I am a non-believer (the term atheist means to me someone who believes in a religion with no god, such as Shintoism) who happens to believe that religion represents a positive force for many believers. Of course it can also be a negative influence but I see no inherent reason for arguing against it other than when this affects the wider society (such as Creationism being taught in schools). People can believe what they want. And they can give their money away to whatever cause they want too. What harm is it doing? In many cases the religious activity helps them feel good about themselves and the world - that can only be a good thing. Does it matter if that is based on a genuine set of miracles or a collection of fairy tales? Not to me.

 

 

I agree with your sentiments in principle. However, for a religious believer, it appears fundamental to their world view that the supernatural god is in charge and that it is a net benefit for all of us to come to believe in their version of that god. Hence it is often seen by believers as their duty to impose their beliefs upon others, and rarely by force. Instead, they want their beliefs taught in schools. They want their political leaders to embody their rules in law, or to give their beliefs special treatment, such as government subsidies or freedom from taxes.

 

The reality is that the nature of the beliefs held by most religious believers is incompatible with your ideal...an ideal that would be completely acceptable to me, fwiw.

 

The fact that many believers are far more tolerant than those I fear, and many have no difficulty separating religion from secular aspects doesn't help much and indeed goes to the very question that was at the start of this thread.

 

It seems to be an inescapable reality that in any recognized religious movement, there is some component that seeks secular power, and that power is for the purpose of spreading the religious belief.

 

Even Bhuddism, to which many religious apologists point as being far more benign than other organized religions, has this sort of effect, as anyone who has studied the history of Tibet in even cursory detail will know.

 

It is popular and imo justified to assail China for its Tibet policy but the fact that China is doing, we think, wrong doesn't make the former Tibetan theocracy any less of an authoritarian theocracy.

 

If the entire world of religious believers consisted of the Mycrofts and Codos of our forum, I'd be happy to see religion left completely alone. However, it isn't and the nature of the beast appears to preclude the possibility.

 

The issues only come when groups try to impose their ideas on others. I do not see that from the Christians posting here and think it is disrespectful to state categorically that something is untrue that cannot currently (and probably not ever) be proved falsh. I much prefer the line that each lives their own life according to their own beliefs. The difficulties only come when a religious belief impacts on the rights of indivduals or another group or when the rights of a religious belief are impacted by other rules within society (usually coming from a different group). These cases are complex and, in my opinion, much more interesting than any debate on whether the beliefs of a particular religion are correct or not.

 

I agree 100%. However, some factual aspects of, say, the Christian version of history are demonstrably false, and there is no harm saying so. It is not intolerance to say, for example, that there is none of the historical evidence that surely would exist were the OT tales of the Jews in Egypt true. It is a question of fact, based on current research and findings. Information in this can be found very easily by using google (and I do know that the internet is fallible :P )

 

That is a different category of assertion than the assertion, for example, that there is no god. I don't recall anyone on this thread making that sort of assertion.

 

However, the believers seem to have a problem understanding the difference.

[Trinidad]

Happy to give you points for humor but are you not avoiding admitting error by fantasizing? My Fowler was never like this.:D

Perhaps you can explain what you mean by your last two posts. I don't get what you intend to say.

 

Rik

[Winstonm]

Meaning no disrespect to any group or person, but as I have aged I have come to see parallels between Old Testament stories and the mythologies of other regions, so that this gathering of stories that comprise the OT sounds to me like a mixture of Jewish mythology, a little history, and some Aesop-like morality stories.

[Fluffy]

However, for a religious believer, it appears fundamental to their world view that the supernatural god is in charge and that it is a net benefit for all of us to come to believe in their version of that god. Hence it is often seen by believers as their duty to impose their beliefs upon others, and rarely by force. Instead, they want their beliefs taught in schools. They want their political leaders to embody their rules in law, or to give their beliefs special treatment, such as government subsidies or freedom from taxes.

Hey, we love you as Jesus loved us. So we care about you, and its natural that we wanna help you understand the real truth, but forgive me for not trying harder and giving up too easily.

[mikeh]

Hey, we love you as Jesus loved us. So we care about you, and its natural that we wanna help you understand the real truth, but forgive me for not trying harder and giving up too easily.

No problem: I'm a lost cause anyway :P

 

Besides, I thought you no longer felt that your church was definitely right! I thought that at least some of the doubters' posts had raised your consciousness to the point that you recognized that simply accepting what you were told as a child was a dubious approach to understanding the world.

 

Oh well, you are maybe a lost cause too. Let's agree to just have a beer (or a glass of wine) B-)

[Fluffy]

You didn't convince me that Jesus didn't exist, but you at least made me think it as an option. I have added it into the mix, somewhere between living on the Matrix and being the main character of Truman Show.

 

The church is wrong, or has been wrong at least, and I don't have enough faith to think someone who has been wrong is infalible. But that doesn't change the fact that god is watching for us.

[mikeh]

But that doesn't change the fact that god is watching for us.

 

If you try to examine precisely WHY you think that that is a 'fact', and you find the evidence points clearly in that direction, then so be it. I mean, really try to think about the precise mental process that leads you to that (to me) remarkable assertion of 'fact'.

 

I would ask, however, that before closing your mind on the exercise, you ask why you do not accept the same reasoning as proving that Odin or Zeus is watching for you ;)

 

I promise I won't pose the question to you again or debate any answer you give.

 

Incidentally, the notion that we are living in a simulation (the Matrix)is meaningless, for the same reasons that the notion that 'god did it' is meaningless. All such 'explanations' are regressive and untestable, thus not only incapable of proof but also incapable of disproof. Being in the Truman show, however, is a completely different proposition. In the Matrix, the hero had to have supernatural, inexplicable powers to detect the simulation. In the Truman Show, the hero could, literally, punch holes in the bubble in which he lived. So it wasn't the least bit a regressive situation.

 

Jesus may well have lived: certainly there were a number of charismatic cult leaders in that area at that time, espousing various forms of messianic teachings. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if he existed, and was crucified by the Romans, and that his followers, generations later, invented a whole lot of stories about him. I have heard, for example, that the notion of the resurrection was a late addition to the legend and that early versions omitted that, now, important detail. I don't know enough to assert whether that is correct or not, and it is not central to my thesis anyway. So you have confused my concerns: I had hoped, not that you doubted the existence of a Jesus character, but that you had entertained the possibility that your belief in god was unjustified by any evidence. Oh well.

[blackshoe]

On topic, I am a non-believer (the term atheist means to me someone who believes in a religion with no god, such as Shintoism)

You do not understand Shinto. Hint: the word comes from the Chinese "Shen Dao" meaning "way of the gods". Second hint: Amaterasu-omikami.

 

"Religion" means "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods". By this definition, there can be no religion without gods.

 

"Atheist" means "a person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods".

 

"Theist" means "a person who believes in the existence of a god or gods, especially one who believes in one God as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures".

 

"Deist" means "a person who believes in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe".

 

"Agnostic" means "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God".

 

Interestingly, Gnosticism was "a prominent heretical movement of the 2nd-century Christian Church, partly of pre-Christian origin. Gnostic doctrine taught that the world was created and ruled by a lesser divinity, the demiurge, and that Christ was an emissary of the remote supreme divine being, esoteric knowledge (gnosis) of whom enabled the redemption of the human spirit".

 

Definitions from the Oxford American Dictionary.

 

Kind of hard to discuss a subject when peoples' definitions of the relevant words are different. Can we agree on these?

[Zelandakh]

As I learned it, Shintoism has no gods but instead has a very large number of spirits. This is one example of how a religion can be formed without a god, thus an atheist religion. Presumably your position is that there is functionally no difference between a spirit and a god in this context and that therefore Shintoism is a polytheist religion. I can understand that position but what of Buddhism? Buddhism is the other major religion that is sometimes referred to as an atheist religion. That is a little strange because The Buddha himself was a theist and believed in many gods. However, the teachings do not depend on any deity and (by my understanding) it is optional for Buddhists to believe in a god or gods or to be atheists. Your definition of religion would certainly discount Buddhism. It is a definition centered very firmly in Western beliefs, whereas a broader definition is required if we are discussing religion in a worlwide sense.

 

I was also taught (at school) that Atheist comes from the same family as Monotheist and Polytheist, meaing respectively believers in religions of zero, one and many gods. Theist is the generalisation of this meaning roughly the same as believer. Agnosticism is the belief that such things are unknown. I am aware that atheist is often, and indeed more commonly, used in a different way than the above. I do not find it difficult to hold a discussion whatever definitions are being used, only that when I speak I will use non-believer where you will probably use atheist. That does not seem to me to make discussion difficult. That said, I generally do not join in discussions on religion because, as I wrote above, they tend to focus on aspects that I find less interesting. I would probaly never have even opened this thread had it not been for the link within the moderation thread.

[Trinidad]

"Religion" means "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods". By this definition, there can be no religion without gods.

Nice that you looked up this long list of terms. Did you care to look up the meaning of "esp."?

 

[long list of other Oxford dictionary definitions]

Kind of hard to discuss a subject when peoples' definitions of the relevant words are different. Can we agree on these?

I don't remember whether it was you or someone else who came up with a list of Oxford dictionary definitions before. (I don't care to look it up.)

 

But to demonstrate the limitations of a dictionary in specialized discussion I looked up a simple bridge term:

Stayman means "an apple of a deep red variety with a mildly tart flavor, originating in the US."

 

Ok, that's a little unfair. The bridge meaning of Stayman is not in the dictionary. So, I looked up "double". It obviously has a lot of meanings, and it also has the meaning in bridge, as a noun and a verb (on line version):

 

noun

Bridge a call that will increase the penalty points won by the defenders if the declarer fails to make the contract.

 

verb

Bridge make a call increasing the value of the penalty points to be scored on an opponent’s bid if it wins the auction and is not fulfilled: West’s failure to double 4♥ [no object]:it may be right for East to double

 

As a TD you should see immediately that it left out the fact that the value of the opponents' score is increased if they do make the contract. But it is good to know now that all those TDs have it wrong, after all the Oxford dictionary says...

 

Conclusion: Do NOT (repeat: NOT) use an Oxford Dictionary when the level of a discussion gets beyond the very basic. The Oxford dictionary does not contain the answer to all mankind's questions. At best, it contains a brief description of terms aimed for people who don't know anything about that term, just so they can form a rough idea about the term's meaning.

 

It is a very useful book for many purposes. I highly recommend it. But if you think that you should use it for definitions in high level discussions, I suggest that you just use it as a paper weight. It is more useful that way.

 

Rik

[Scarabin]

Perhaps you can explain what you mean by your last two posts. I don't get what you intend to say.

 

Rik

Put very simply, I think you are confusing neutral statements such as "If religion does some good, so be it." with loaded questions like "Has Trinidad stopped beating his wife?", to which even I would object.

 

I also said that I did not think you would find any support for your view in Fowler's "The King's English"

 

OK? :D

[blackshoe]

Nice that you looked up this long list of terms. Did you care to look up the meaning of "esp."?

It's an abbreviation for "especially". Do you have a problem with it?

 

"High level discussions"? This is not the Vatican, or some University seminar on religion. It's the internet. If you think this is a high level discussion, you're dreaming.

[the hog]

You do not understand Shinto. Hint: the word comes from the Chinese "Shen Dao" meaning "way of the gods". Second hint: Amaterasu-omikami.

 

"Religion" means "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods". By this definition, there can be no religion without gods.

 

"Atheist" means "a person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods".

 

"Theist" means "a person who believes in the existence of a god or gods, especially one who believes in one God as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures".

 

"Deist" means "a person who believes in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe".

 

"Agnostic" means "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God".

 

Interestingly, Gnosticism was "a prominent heretical movement of the 2nd-century Christian Church, partly of pre-Christian origin. Gnostic doctrine taught that the world was created and ruled by a lesser divinity, the demiurge, and that Christ was an emissary of the remote supreme divine being, esoteric knowledge (gnosis) of whom enabled the redemption of the human spirit".

 

Definitions from the Oxford American Dictionary.

 

Kind of hard to discuss a subject when peoples' definitions of the relevant words are different. Can we agree on these?

 

Buddhism does not believe in the existence of a god. Buddhists certainly do not believe that Buddha was a god, just an enlightened one - one who has reached Nirvana. Personally I do not regard Buddhism as a religion because of your definition above, however many with whom I discuss Buddhism or who ask me about it seem to regard it as a religion. To me it is a way of life, despite the belief in reincarnation. The reason Buddhists do not believe in God, (unless they want to -we are very tolerant- is for 2 reasons mainly. 1) The god concept appears to be rooted in fear and this is alien to Buddhism. 2) There is no real evidence that God exists. However if you want to believe in god, please do so; it is up to you. Questions you might like to ponder are "Does it even matter if god exists? What difference would it make to anything if god actually did exist?"

 

To Zelandakh:

I know of no Buddhist who believes in the existence of a "God". The concept is foreign and has no formal place in Buddhism. I would be interested in knowing where you read or came across the idea that Buddha was a polytheist? He was at first, but after reaching enlightenment, stopped believing in God(s)

 

By the way, I live in a country of 90% Buddhists, have discussions with monks and nuns on a daily basis, regularly make tak bat, am married to a Buddhist, live in a family of Buddhists (and just for mentioning it, came back from the temple a few minutes before making this post).

[Trinidad]

"Religion" means "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods". By this definition, there can be no religion without gods.

["esp." is] an abbreviation for "especially". Do you have a problem with it?

Exactly. And I have looked up the meaning of especially for you:

 

to a great extent; very much

 

Therefore, "religion" means "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, very often a personal God or gods".

 

How do you conclude from that that "By this definition, there can be no religion without gods."? After all, "to a great extent; very much" is not the same as "completely" and "very often" is significantly different from "always".

 

No one will argue with you that religion is very often associated with a god or gods. The three Abrahamic religions are pretty big together, and there are about a billion or so Hindus. But your assertion that there can be no religion without gods is simply untrue and doesn't follow from the definition in the dictionary that you revere.

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

Put very simply, I think you are confusing neutral statements such as "If religion does some good, so be it." with loaded questions like "Has Trinidad stopped beating his wife?", to which even I would object.

 

I also said that I did not think you would find any support for your view in Fowler's "The King's English"

 

OK? :D

It's now clear what you meant, thanks. It is also clear that we disagree.

 

To me, a loaded question goes a step further than an "if statement":

 

  You start at 0, nothing is on the agenda.

 

  Then there is the if statement: "If Trinidad is beating his wife, what should we do about it?" which suggests the possibility of Trinidad beating his wife and puts it on the agenda: "Suppose the condition is true, what then?". As long as nobody stands up saying that the condition is false, arrangements will be discussed assuming the condition is true. We will be discussing what to do about a wife beating Trinidad.

Now, logically, an if-then statement is perfectly neutral, but humans are not computers. And, psychologically, the suggestion of the possibility and the fact that we are devoting our precious time on what to do if Trinidad would beat his wife, suggests that Trinidad is beating his wife: Why else would we have a discussion (and spend the resources) on what to do if he beats his wife? Or to put it back into logical terms: Would any human programmer ever write a piece of code like:

 

    If 1=2

    then

        Do a lot of complicated things

        Do more complicated things

    else

        Do nothing

 

Of course not. He would not waste his time on this. He only programs if-then statements where he considers that the condition might be true.

 

  Finally, there is the loaded question. It goes a step further and poses (often, but not necessarily, implicitly) something that is false as if it were true: You cannot stop beating your wife, if you weren't beating your wife to begin with. A loaded question is pretty much a (perhaps implicit) lie in the form of a question.

 

An "if statement" is not a lie. I haven't claimed that either. But it contains a suggestion.

 

And I don't like suggestions that religion might prevent people from being psychopaths, particularly since I think that religion has been the cause of a lot of psychological suffering, some of which so extensive that it is pathological.

 

Rik

 

P.S. To give you a very uninformative answer to your loaded question: No, I haven't stopped beating my wife.

[Fluffy]

I would ask, however, that before closing your mind on the exercise, you ask why you do not accept the same reasoning as proving that Odin or Zeus is watching for you ;)

 

Different names for the same thing. Fact was perhaps too strong a word to define my faith that he/them is/are watching, but it is a fact that he exists.

 

The problem with truman show is that it assumed real world and fake world were at the same age. Create a truman show about previous centuries and they won´t stand a chance to recognice a camera or anything.

[Trinidad]

Different names for the same thing. Fact was perhaps too strong a word to define my faith that he/them is/are watching, but it is a fact that he exists.

If you consider that people are writing and talking about him/her/them and are influenced by him/her/them, I would readily admit that (s)he/they exist(s), at least in the minds of some people.

 

But to extend past the imagination and get a little more objective (so that we are justified in the use of the word "fact"): How can you objectively establish his/her/their existance? What measurable properties do(es) (s)he/they have?

 

How big? What density? What energy? What temperature? color? magnetic properties? mass? electrical conductivity? smell? Made up of what?

 

How is/are (s)he/they measurably influencing anything (other than the minds of the believers and, as a result, their actions, and, as another result, even mine: I wouldn't be writing this if god didn't exist in your mind)?

 

Or are we dealing here with a very subjective "fact": An absolute certainty for Fluffy (and many others), but not universal or extendable to the rest of the world? That is perfectly fine with me, but I wouldn't use the word "fact" to describe something that is this subjective.

 

Rik

[Scarabin]

It's now clear what you meant, thanks. It is also clear that we disagree.

 

To me, a loaded question goes a step further than an "if statement":

 

  You start at 0, nothing is on the agenda.

 

  Then there is the if statement: "If Trinidad is beating his wife, what should we do about it?" which suggests the possibility of Trinidad beating his wife and puts it on the agenda: "Suppose the condition is true, what then?". As long as nobody stands up saying that the condition is false, arrangements will be discussed assuming the condition is true. We will be discussing what to do about a wife beating Trinidad.

Now, logically, an if-then statement is perfectly neutral, but humans are not computers. And, psychologically, the suggestion of the possibility and the fact that we are devoting our precious time on what to do if Trinidad would beat his wife, suggests that Trinidad is beating his wife: Why else would we have a discussion (and spend the resources) on what to do if he beats his wife? Or to put it back into logical terms: Would any human programmer ever write a piece of code like:

 

    If 1=2

    then

        Do a lot of complicated things

        Do more complicated things

    else

        Do nothing

 

Of course not. He would not waste his time on this. He only programs if-then statements where he considers that the condition might be true.

 

  Finally, there is the loaded question. It goes a step further and poses (often, but not necessarily, implicitly) something that is false as if it were true: You cannot stop beating your wife, if you weren't beating your wife to begin with. A loaded question is pretty much a (perhaps implicit) lie in the form of a question.

 

An "if statement" is not a lie. I haven't claimed that either. But it contains a suggestion.

 

And I don't like suggestions that religion might prevent people from being psychopaths, particularly since I think that religion has been the cause of a lot of psychological suffering, some of which so extensive that it is pathological.

 

Rik

 

P.S. To give you a very uninformative answer to your loaded question: No, I haven't stopped beating my wife.

You are very persuasive and I am tempted to accept your premise. I won't however because:-

(1) I feel that if I look long and hard enough I may discover a non-sequiter in your logic, and

(2) In essence,your philosophy boils down to "people will always believe/suspect the worst so in self defence we must become paranoid",and

(3) Your approach means no-one can ever float a controversial hypothesis?

 

Perhaps we could compromise by agreeing a form of words nige1 could have used without offence?

 

Your programming example is amusing but not quite accurate: I happen to be the sort of woolly-thinking amateur programmer who writes woefully inaccurate algorithms and then writes much more complicated algorithms to discover why the originals don't work. :D

[Fluffy]

How big? What density? What energy? What temperature? color? magnetic properties? mass? electrical conductivity? smell? Made up of what?

Thinking of our world as a computer simulated one makes this questions trivial: God could be a girl playing sims on a 4 dimensional world, it really makes no sense to try to meassure her in our terms.

[Zelandakh]

To Zelandakh:

I know of no Buddhist who believes in the existence of a "God". The concept is foreign and has no formal place in Buddhism. I would be interested in knowing where you read or came across the idea that Buddha was a polytheist? He was at first, but after reaching enlightenment, stopped believing in God(s)

You surprise me greatly, for it was my understanding that gods such as Brahma are fundamentally accepted within the Buddhist universe, albeit as mortal and subject to karma and suffering. Indeed, according to the legends as I (badly) know them it was Brahma who persuaded The Buddha to teach. Similarly, at least within Zen Buddhism, I have heard the idea of a consciousness that is often seen and described as something similar to God in the Christian sense. Finally, the concept of a God is essentially compatible with the idea of reducing suffering. There is no reason why one cannot believe in Judeo-Christian God and still follow the teachings of Buddha. My understanding is that this is not unusual in some circles.

 

As for The Buddha, my understanding is that he stopped praying to the gods sometime before 30 and went out to find his own path. Not praying to them is not the same as not believing in them. As above, he is said to have had a conversation with one. With regards to a Creator, Buddha's position appears to have been something similar to that of a skeptic today but he regarded the question as irrelevant since it does not help on the path to enlightenment. Anyway, I am certain that you know Buddhism much better than I ever will so I accept that I may be wrong on one or more of these points. That said, your experience of Buddhism may well be different from the experiences of Buddhists in a Western country. Buddhism is by nature a religion tolerant of other beliefs and can easily exist in peaceful coexistence with them.

[gwnn]

There is no reason why one cannot believe in Judeo-Christian God and still follow the teachings of Buddha.

John 14:6?

 

"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

 

To be fair, I read in a book by Osho that Jesus meant it as I am the way, i.e. for gwnn, gwnn is the way, for Zelandakh, Zelandakh is the way, everyone needs to go through their own "I" if they want to come to the Father (which is I guess another word for Nirvana :blink: ). This is one of the most preposterous interpretations of John 14:6 but OK I guess 1st century illiterates understood such poetic images more readily than we do.

[Trinidad]

Thinking of our world as a computer simulated one makes this questions trivial: God could be a girl playing sims on a 4 dimensional world, it really makes no sense to try to meassure her in our terms.

That is certainly possible. But a possibility ("could") doesnot make a fact.

 

What makes you so sure (sure enough to call it a fact) that we are pieces in Someone's game, rather than leave the possibility open that we ourselves are the players (and that there is nobody else at buttons somewhere)?

 

Rik

[Fluffy]

Universe in its own, so big we cannot even imagine it, with so many sets of physic rules, yet it is just there having a meaningless existence forever, it makes so much less sense to me than anything else.

 

 

EDIT: Oh yeah, and remember when god came to heart and changed the world 2000 years ago? :P

[gwnn]

(bold face added by me)

Universe in its own, so big we cannot even imagine it, with so many sets of physic rules, yet it is just there having a meaningless existence forever, it makes so much less sense to me than anything else.

 

 

EDIT: Oh yeah, and remember when god came to heart and changed the world 2000 years ago? :P

This really does sound like a subjective fact as Trinidad was describing it, don't you agree?