Atheist & Agnostic Family

[Profesco]

In order to stop us from falling off the last page of clubs, how about I present a challenge to you guys? I'd like to see how everyone answers an argument for the existence of God. If you guys enjoy it, we can even do more of them. =)

This one's called the Kalam cosmological argument; it's a slight twist on the traditional cosmological (or "first cause") argument.

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
4) Nothing that begins to exist can cause itself to begin to exist; the cause must be external to that thing.
5) The only thing external to the universe is God.
6) Therefore, God caused the universe.


You guys can address as much or as little of the argument as you like, whether it's a full refutation or just pointing out a problem with one premise. Have at it!

 

[Dilasc]

The fact that it makes an assumption that god must exist because it's simply an alternative of some sort means the Kalam is yet another feeble arguement without basis and is thusly constructed by fail!

Anyways, Christmas... let's not even bring up the BS that is the Solstace doomsday, but still Christmas... I hate it!

 

[Celestial Moth]

In order to stop us from falling off the last page of clubs, how about I present a challenge to you guys? I'd like to see how everyone answers an argument for the existence of God. If you guys enjoy it, we can even do more of them. =)

This one's called the Kalam cosmological argument; it's a slight twist on the traditional cosmological (or "first cause") argument.

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
4) Nothing that begins to exist can cause itself to begin to exist; the cause must be external to that thing.
5) The only thing external to the universe is God.
6) Therefore, God caused the universe.


You guys can address as much or as little of the argument as you like, whether it's a full refutation or just pointing out a problem with one premise. Have at it!

1. Energy cant be destroyed it can only be re-directed and stored.
2. Everything evolved from the most basic form of anything, pure energy.
3. Pure energy must have gained a collective consciousness to imbue that consciousness into atoms and or groups of them
4. The first being through a collective energy formed a consciousness.
5. The first being multiplied. Perhaps the story very few know of called: divine suicide, ( detonated itself to experience death)
6. from the original realm in which that consciousness and being still exists, all things extended outwards from the alternate points of "zero" and were made additions to them.

All things are built upon pure energy and although this is not 100% confirmed, string theory theorizes this through a logical expression of reasoning. One could even theorize the existence of the soul through smiler implications to that logic, by saying, that through the accumulation of the various forms of energy in which extended out of the original source, parts of it could form a separate collective consciousness while yet still being part of the original whole because of our own energies composition.

 

[Pokemon Geek]

Merry Christmas everyone!

 

[spyro and sonic]

*bump*
A late Merry Christmas to everyone!

 

[Celestial Moth]

Why aren't people responding to the statement Dr. Profesco provided?

In order to stop us from falling off the last page of clubs, how about I present a challenge to you guys? I'd like to see how everyone answers an argument for the existence of God. If you guys enjoy it, we can even do more of them. =)

This one's called the Kalam cosmological argument; it's a slight twist on the traditional cosmological (or "first cause") argument.

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
4) Nothing that begins to exist can cause itself to begin to exist; the cause must be external to that thing.
5) The only thing external to the universe is God.
6) Therefore, God caused the universe.


You guys can address as much or as little of the argument as you like, whether it's a full refutation or just pointing out a problem with one premise. Have at it!

This was my previous post with now some additions.

1. Energy cant be destroyed it can only be re-directed and stored.
2. Everything evolved from the most basic form of anything, pure energy.
3. Pure energy must have gained a collective consciousness to imbue that consciousness into atoms and or groups of them
4. The first being through a collective energy formed a consciousness.
5. The first being multiplied. Perhaps the story very few know of called: divine suicide, ( detonated itself to experience death)
6. from the original realm in which that consciousness and being still exists, all things extended outwards from the alternate points of "zero" and were made additions to them.

All things are built upon pure energy and although this is not 100% confirmed, string theory theorizes this through a logical expression of reasoning. One could even theorize the existence of the soul through smiler implications to that logic, by saying, that through the accumulation of the various forms of energy in which extended out of the original source, parts of it could form a separate collective consciousness while yet still being part of the original whole because of our own energies composition.

We all have the potential to expand our own state of consciousness to evolve and the state of consciousness in which grows only due to knowledge is what furthers evolution beyond what some can perceive. Its this very evolution in which has giving beings the knowledge and or evolutionary trait to survive what some consider to be un-survivable. By which I'm refer to the death of our material bodies. But the very scientific and unmovable principle, that says energy can not be destroyed it can only be re-directed and stored, suggests that those with the evolutionary traits could in fact further evolve theirs self's into a form in which some could perceive as an inter-dimensional state of existence. Because of the logical expression in which i have provided earlier, which is that, our consciousness and or spirit is made up of a collective pure dimensionless form of energy it is virtually uncontainable.
This is by no means a farfetched concept, though it is an ignored one.
The first being within existence( god ) evolved its own energy in a similar manner. Whom could have only further evolved it's self due to the inconceivable amount of time which it could have only been contained by.
Some beings have managed through the teachings of the many divine paths, to further their evolution and project their own spirit and energy into planes and dimensions in which were created through an addition and or link to the "zero" point of energy and or the original alternate plane of reality in which we exist in. The link and or realms and dimensions that the first being branched of and into due to the dimensionless properties of evolved energy in which can travel through dimensions.

This could only ever be considered nonsense by the ludicrous because it was Charles Darwin himself, who suggested that time will give beings the evolutionary traits to survive due to their own strengths and weaknesses. A simple and logical addition to that summary is that, some beings ,including the first one, have gained the knowledge and or evolutionary traits to survive and or further evolve their self's through the transition between material existences. The transition in which we all undergo, and due to the constant degrading,rebuilding and evolution of our material bodies. This movement and or evolution is simply produced/acted on because of the knowledge possessed by the spirit whom has such a high state of awareness and consciousness that they their selfs are aware and able to choose an existence, or to project their selfs beyond this state of existence and reality. Due to the dimensionless nature of all energy.

 

[Darato]

Happy New Year everyone

I love you all

L.F.D.

 

[stoutshako]

I want to join, probably the only club in that i fit in

 

[7 tyranitars]

Welcome, and happy new year guys.

 

[Schade]

Happy new year, people!

(I'm in this club, just haven't posted in like.. forever)

 

[Darato]

New Topic

Do you think the world needs religion

Personally I think it does. Cause there are a lot of things set up to help people that people only take part in cause they think God wants them to, and without that there theres nothing for those people. Also many issues have been started because of religion, but at the same time many more would come out if we got rid of it, like all the people who don't kill only cause they fear God. Than we get into bigots. Religion does make a lot of them, but many of them only use their religion as a reason not to be looked upon in a negative light, and as the world changes with times doesn't take long for religion to start changing that way toO

L.F.D.

 

[Celestial Moth]

New Topic

Do you think the world needs religion

I believe it does.
Though their will always be many facets of religion , spirituality, in which religion imbues in people and its to powerful for people to simply ignore. As spirituality is the only
things that gives true knowledge to people and power to religion as knowledge is power.
Theirs a lot of spiritual people in this reality along with a lot of religious,also some who don't believe in anything and that's fine.Though theirs a thick line separating these two factions of spirituality. A small example of this
is Satanism, which when researched in-depth, you will discover that their philosophy isn't only based upon material gratification, its based upon the rejuvenation and
celebration of the material energies in which true they've realized to exists. Satanism is well known for also using crystals in which encompass sometimes very strong metaphysical properties in which effect our internal energy system, whom have realized the benefits of that.
So even within many of the spiritual factions on this world, theirs many that simply choose not to associate with religion for one reason of another.

Within spirituality comes true knowledge and given that no-one new how to respond and or ignored my post i supplied above.. Proves that..

Religion for most, is simply a way out of the "hellish" existence filled with pain and misery in which they have been blessed with. Though for the few it could also serve as a very accurate stage and or divining rod in which they can use to further their spiritual studies to a plain even fewer are capable of comprehending.

Philosophy couldn't be more prominent within this subject as it in itself is more of less the art of thinking. Those who can handle the great weight of internal contemplation at a high level often produce some of the more prominent and indisputable knowledge known. For the most part, philosophy in the hands of religion has been no as Gnostic information simply because Religion had such a grasp on peoples minds and could mislead people. But things have changed, and the Gnostic knowledge now produced by true intellectuals is unmove-ably sound, spiritual knowledge in which in the correct hand can answer the the questions in which few can understand and in a manner that is beyond logical.

Religion though diluted as it can be, still offers as great a stage for the studies of knowledge as it ever has, the problem is that most are misconstrued by topics and or subjects governed by them. This by no means spoils the knowledge in which it can offer, though it does blind many to it.
Religions simple a small hurdle and or a "starting" point for those on a spiritual path whom seek true knowledge, though that is to say that their is more to know in this existence than most perceive,but, under a perception of reality, one will never see what is truly intended because the true nature of reality doesn't operate under the perception of anything, it is as it is, without a known perception.. So as long as anyone who is adapting their own perception onto reality,daring to describe it, will always be wrong in their deciphering process. That is what i believe to be the flaw in most religions, philosophies and trains of thought.
The world does need religion though, simple because harmony is the alignment of chaos and in religion many unstable and or chaotic beings reside their, calming their spirits.

 

[Moonlight Amaryllis]

I did not die and go to hell guys, I'm baaaaaaack~

Edit: Also, Christian science.

Oh dear Arceus.

Kids Without God (the teen version)

A new internet resource the American Humanist Association has put together to try offering support to child and teen skeptics.

Now, I've been looking over this site for the past hour, and my evaluation is mixed. There are some very nice things to see there, such as resources and suggestions useful for defending one's arguments or critically thinking about claims, and also a page or two dedicated to recommending respect, kindness, and tolerance for all views including those of the devoutly religious (as characterized by the theme of "don't call religious people idiots"). There are also a handful of resources for kids suffering all kinds of experiences, from bullying for their gender/sexuality to dealing with depression, eating disorders, or other psychological problems to "coming out" as secular to a religious community. All positives.

But I also notice that a few of their resources just reek of, for lack of better words, pandering or propaganda. Which, mind you, is not to imply untruth in their position, but to say that there is the occasional (maybe more than occasional) oversimplification of an issue or strawman characterization of the religious argument. There's a version of the site for young kids, for example, that uses a "Darwin the dog" construct that is just so cheesily patronizing and overtly one-sided... I'm a little embarassed by it - despite my sincere enthusiasm for evolutionary biology, even.

Any thoughts, you guys?

Granted, I'm glad that websites such as that exist, but the "propaganda" and "pandering" you speak of is an issue that is probably used to make young atheists feel better about themselves. Albiet I think that it's a bit twisted.

There have been many armageddon 'predictions' but I'll tell you one that's true, we're gonna be in a world of fudge if we don't stop those damn icecaps from melting!

I want to quote this so damn bad XD

An Atheist group? I'm Christian myself, but I won't look down on anybody that isn't my religion. That makes me so upset, and sometimes embarrassed to be a Christian, especially when it even says directly from our Bible "Thou shall not force religion". I won't go off on everybody for having their own beliefs. I'm glad a group like this exists, an open group that usually would get so much hatred spewed at them. I would like people to convert, sure, but I wouldn't go so far as to hate people that don't/keep on pushing it. People believe in what they think is right, and that's how it should stay. So in regard to stereotypical Christians or other religious groups in general, keep on fighting the good fight!

Thank you for being a tolerant Christian, like my sister, instead of the bashing type

Kinoyo, are you perhaps from this church:

[img139]http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/god-sign.jpg[/img139]

Pfffft XD

In order to stop us from falling off the last page of clubs, how about I present a challenge to you guys? I'd like to see how everyone answers an argument for the existence of God. If you guys enjoy it, we can even do more of them. =)

This one's called the Kalam cosmological argument; it's a slight twist on the traditional cosmological (or "first cause") argument.

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
4) Nothing that begins to exist can cause itself to begin to exist; the cause must be external to that thing.
5) The only thing external to the universe is God.
6) Therefore, God caused the universe.


You guys can address as much or as little of the argument as you like, whether it's a full refutation or just pointing out a problem with one premise. Have at it!

Going to derp out answering this, I know I will.

Of course everything that exists has a cause, whether the cause itself was once-in-a-blue-moon force of nature or simply the action of a living, thinking, human being.
The universe began to exists...Nothing to say here.
Of course it did.
Uh...
Where's your proof?
You never told us how GOD exists!!

Knew it.

New Topic

Do you think the world needs religion

Well...

I don't think I'm in the position to answer that question. Because I think both yes and no. Yes, because the Bible can be an accurate moral guide for doing the right thing, and no because it is also full of lies and discrimination--I'm talking about the GLB issue.

 

[Dilasc]

I don't think people NEED it... they THINK they need it, but it's a huge hinderance to true progress at large.

Yes, because the Bible can be an accurate moral guide for doing the right thing

Any 'moral guide' that advises homophobia, slave owning, mass genocide, selling your own daughters to prostitution all while turning cheek to incestual drunk rape is a TERRIBLE guide of morality.

 

[Moonlight Amaryllis]

I don't think people NEED it... they THINK they need it, but it's a huge hinderance to true progress at large.

Hm, true dat.

Any 'moral guide' that advises homophobia, slave owning, mass genocide, selling your own daughters to prostitution all while turning cheek to incestual drunk rape is a TERRIBLE guide of morality.

I said can be, not is. The Bible speaks proudly of both sh*t like you said, and of forgiving and love over hate. Though now that I think about it, the evil people in the Bible all disbelieved God, and that made them evil, didn't they? *sweat*

 

[Dilasc]

Yes, THINKING is an evil. Remember, the only 'unforgivable sin' is to not believe.

It should be instinct though to take care of your family, not try and hurt people and work towards a better future, WITHOUT having to outsource your personal thoughts to a socially acceptable invisible leprochaun!

I mean, if people subbed god with Unicorn, they'd be sporting nice backwards armed jackets in padded rooms.

 

[Celestial Moth]

I have a rather interesting question concerning this matter, why it my posts are being ignored ay.
Especially my first post on this page which took special exception to ignorance lol.

 

[Dragonfree]

In order to stop us from falling off the last page of clubs, how about I present a challenge to you guys? I'd like to see how everyone answers an argument for the existence of God. If you guys enjoy it, we can even do more of them. =)

This one's called the Kalam cosmological argument; it's a slight twist on the traditional cosmological (or "first cause") argument.

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
4) Nothing that begins to exist can cause itself to begin to exist; the cause must be external to that thing.
5) The only thing external to the universe is God.
6) Therefore, God caused the universe.


You guys can address as much or as little of the argument as you like, whether it's a full refutation or just pointing out a problem with one premise. Have at it!

There are several issues with the Kalam cosmological argument.

First, it relies on trying to reason on a common-sense basis about causality outside the universe, when really we have no idea what it even means to talk about one thing "causing" another outside the universe. Our brains are made to understand things that we can see and perceive in their entirety, but things that aren't within the range of things evolution equipped us to understand have often been proven to behave in ways that appear completely counterintuitive to us (see all of quantum mechanics). Common-sense reasoning like "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" or "Nothing that begins to exist can cause itself to exist" does not necessarily apply to phenomena like the universe itself any more than common-sense reasoning like "Things can only be in one place at one time" necessarily applies when we start dealing with subatomic scales. I'm inclined to reject any argument built around the infallibility of simple common-sense reasoning.

Secondly, the argument begs the question by declaring suddenly that "the only thing external to the universe is God". Where on earth does that statement come from and why in the world would anyone who doesn't already believe in God accept it as a premise? I could just as well declare that the only thing external to the universe is a gigantic rubber duck, and thus deduce that the gigantic rubber duck must have caused the universe. Making unsupported statements about what is external to the universe obviously doesn't prove a thing.

Thirdly, even if we were to accept that there's exactly one thing external to the universe and that that external thing must have caused the universe and we call that thing God - how is that, in itself, meaningful? Maybe the only thing external to the universe is a gigantic rubber duck, and the gigantic rubber duck did in fact cause the universe, but that only makes it God in a tautological sense, if you define God simply as "whatever caused the universe". The duck doesn't answer prayers; it didn't guide evolution; it doesn't watch over us; it doesn't oversee an afterlife for our eternal souls; it didn't send Jesus to cleanse us of our sins. The cosmological argument isn't an argument for the existence of anything it is meaningful to call God to begin with.

Why aren't people responding to the statement Dr. Profesco provided?



This was my previous post with now some additions.

1. Energy cant be destroyed it can only be re-directed and stored.
2. Everything evolved from the most basic form of anything, pure energy.
3. Pure energy must have gained a collective consciousness to imbue that consciousness into atoms and or groups of them
4. The first being through a collective energy formed a consciousness.
5. The first being multiplied. Perhaps the story very few know of called: divine suicide, ( detonated itself to experience death)
6. from the original realm in which that consciousness and being still exists, all things extended outwards from the alternate points of "zero" and were made additions to them.

All things are built upon pure energy and although this is not 100% confirmed, string theory theorizes this through a logical expression of reasoning. One could even theorize the existence of the soul through smiler implications to that logic, by saying, that through the accumulation of the various forms of energy in which extended out of the original source, parts of it could form a separate collective consciousness while yet still being part of the original whole because of our own energies composition.

We all have the potential to expand our own state of consciousness to evolve and the state of consciousness in which grows only due to knowledge is what furthers evolution beyond what some can perceive. Its this very evolution in which has giving beings the knowledge and or evolutionary trait to survive what some consider to be un-survivable. By which I'm refer to the death of our material bodies. But the very scientific and unmovable principle, that says energy can not be destroyed it can only be re-directed and stored, suggests that those with the evolutionary traits could in fact further evolve theirs self's into a form in which some could perceive as an inter-dimensional state of existence. Because of the logical expression in which i have provided earlier, which is that, our consciousness and or spirit is made up of a collective pure dimensionless form of energy it is virtually uncontainable.
This is by no means a farfetched concept, though it is an ignored one.
The first being within existence( god ) evolved its own energy in a similar manner. Whom could have only further evolved it's self due to the inconceivable amount of time which it could have only been contained by.
Some beings have managed through the teachings of the many divine paths, to further their evolution and project their own spirit and energy into planes and dimensions in which were created through an addition and or link to the "zero" point of energy and or the original alternate plane of reality in which we exist in. The link and or realms and dimensions that the first being branched of and into due to the dimensionless properties of evolved energy in which can travel through dimensions.

You're just throwing "energy!" around as if it's a buzzword that can explain anything you want. Energy is a well-understood physical phenomenon that has absolutely nothing to do with consciousness (well, outside the extremely trivial sense).

This could only ever be considered nonsense by the ludicrous because it was Charles Darwin himself, who suggested that time will give beings the evolutionary traits to survive due to their own strengths and weaknesses. A simple and logical addition to that summary is that, some beings ,including the first one, have gained the knowledge and or evolutionary traits to survive and or further evolve their self's through the transition between material existences. The transition in which we all undergo, and due to the constant degrading,rebuilding and evolution of our material bodies. This movement and or evolution is simply produced/acted on because of the knowledge possessed by the spirit whom has such a high state of awareness and consciousness that they their selfs are aware and able to choose an existence, or to project their selfs beyond this state of existence and reality. Due to the dimensionless nature of all energy.

Evolution by natural selection does not lead to the afterlife magically coming into existence simply because you can call it "survival". Please learn how evolution works.

To be blunt, people probably didn't respond to you because your post is generally nonsensical, rambling spiritual mumbo-jumbo. Try to present your arguments more coherently and understand the concepts you're talking about.

New Topic

Do you think the world needs religion

Personally I think it does. Cause there are a lot of things set up to help people that people only take part in cause they think God wants them to, and without that there theres nothing for those people. Also many issues have been started because of religion, but at the same time many more would come out if we got rid of it, like all the people who don't kill only cause they fear God. Than we get into bigots. Religion does make a lot of them, but many of them only use their religion as a reason not to be looked upon in a negative light, and as the world changes with times doesn't take long for religion to start changing that way toO

L.F.D.

I don't think the world needs religion. People often say that without God they wouldn't be good or whatever, but we have highly secular nations already that are doing just fine. This is an atheist/agnostic club - we're living proof that people don't need religion to be good (well, assuming none of you are going around raping and murdering). The idea that the poor uneducated masses need God in their lives but we're special smart snowflakes who can do without him reeks of elitism and I don't think it's a healthy viewpoint to have.

 

[opaltiger]

First, it relies on trying to reason on a common-sense basis about causality outside the universe, when really we have no idea what it even means to talk about one thing "causing" another outside the universe. Our brains are made to understand things that we can see and perceive in their entirety, but things that aren't within the range of things evolution equipped us to understand have often been proven to behave in ways that appear completely counterintuitive to us (see all of quantum mechanics). Common-sense reasoning like "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" or "Nothing that begins to exist can cause itself to exist" does not necessarily apply to phenomena like the universe itself any more than common-sense reasoning like "Things can only be in one place at one time" necessarily applies when we start dealing with subatomic scales. I'm inclined to reject any argument built around the infallibility of simple common-sense reasoning.

Furthermore, for more or less this reason, the second premise in the argument does not necessarily hold. The only way we can learn about the early universe is to extrapolate backwards from the present. To an extent, this works quite well, so we have a pretty good understanding of what was going on, say, a few seconds after the Big Bang. But if you try and go too far back, general relativity predicts a singularity of infinite density and temperature. So then we have two options: either we accept that "infinite density" and "infinite temperature" are concepts which can exist in reality, or we acknowledge that general relativity does not hold during that time. Either way, clearly the very earliest universe was vastly different from the current universe: and thus, as Dragonfree says, it is nonsensical to assume that we can say anything about it. Relevant to the cosmological argument, specifically, we can't say anything about the beginning of the universe. The universe as we know it - that is, a huge amount of empty space with the occasional bit of matter - began with the Big Bang. But that doesn't mean it didn't exist before that. During the earliest time we know anything about (the Plank epoch) the universe already existed. In other words, the Big Bang Model doesn't really tell us about the beginning of the universe - it tells us about the earliest possible time we know of in the history of the universe.

And there's the catch: 'we know of'. To me, this is the most elegant answer to the cosmological argument (in any form). It's all very well and good to point out that a First Cause is logically invalid, but it's much easier to simply point out that a First Cause isn't necessary. As far as we know, the universe has always existed. Thus, there is no need for a First Cause. Or we could cite Einstein's belief that, before the Big Bang, time did not really exist. Causation requires a certain temporal relationship between two events - in the absence of time, the concept of a cause is irrelevant. Again, there is no need for a First Cause.

 

[Celestial Moth]

There are several issues with the Kalam cosmological argument.

First, it relies on trying to reason on a common-sense basis about causality outside the universe, when really we have no idea what it even means to talk about one thing "causing" another outside the universe. Our brains are made to understand things that we can see and perceive in their entirety, but things that aren't within the range of things evolution equipped us to understand have often been proven to behave in ways that appear completely counterintuitive to us (see all of quantum mechanics). Common-sense reasoning like "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" or "Nothing that begins to exist can cause itself to exist" does not necessarily apply to phenomena like the universe itself any more than common-sense reasoning like "Things can only be in one place at one time" necessarily applies when we start dealing with subatomic scales. I'm inclined to reject any argument built around the infallibility of simple common-sense reasoning.

Secondly, the argument begs the question by declaring suddenly that "the only thing external to the universe is God". Where on earth does that statement come from and why in the world would anyone who doesn't already believe in God accept it as a premise? I could just as well declare that the only thing external to the universe is a gigantic rubber duck, and thus deduce that the gigantic rubber duck must have caused the universe. Making unsupported statements about what is external to the universe obviously doesn't prove a thing.

Thirdly, even if we were to accept that there's exactly one thing external to the universe and that that external thing must have caused the universe and we call that thing God - how is that, in itself, meaningful? Maybe the only thing external to the universe is a gigantic rubber duck, and the gigantic rubber duck did in fact cause the universe, but that only makes it God in a tautological sense, if you define God simply as "whatever caused the universe". The duck doesn't answer prayers; it didn't guide evolution; it doesn't watch over us; it doesn't oversee an afterlife for our eternal souls; it didn't send Jesus to cleanse us of our sins. The cosmological argument isn't an argument for the existence of anything it is meaningful to call God to begin with.



You're just throwing "energy!" around as if it's a buzzword that can explain anything you want. Energy is a well-understood physical phenomenon that has absolutely nothing to do with consciousness (well, outside the extremely trivial sense).


Evolution by natural selection does not lead to the afterlife magically coming into existence simply because you can call it "survival". Please learn how evolution works.

To be blunt, people probably didn't respond to you because your post is generally nonsensical, rambling spiritual mumbo-jumbo. Try to present your arguments more coherently and understand the concepts you're talking about.


I don't think the world needs religion. People often say that without God they wouldn't be good or whatever, but we have highly secular nations already that are doing just fine. I don't think fancying ourselves to be special snowflakes because we don't need religion unlike the uneducated masses is a very good point of view to have.

No but evolution due to natural selection ,means that everything formed form the most basic form of anything, pure energy.
Groups of atoms gather a consciossness due to the energy in which they are made up of. Single cell'd organisms work and are conscioss,
because of the collective energy in which defines them, thus given them a collective consciousness. That tiny and indisputable example can
be said for many other groups of organisms...