Science and Religion

[FeatherDaemon1]

Before I postulate my awesome idea, I'm going to rip your statement to shreds.

1. Sociopaths don't "choose" to be sociopaths.
2. If conflicts didn't arise over abstract beliefs, please explain the crusades, witch burnings, 9/11, 7/7, etc, etc, etc.

I'd also like to throw this across knowing full well it has no bearing on the subject at hand, but it seems to be the common tactic of faith-based people to use quotations from famous people for arbitrary reasons:

"But since the devil's bride, Reason, that pretty *****, comes in and thinks she's wise, and what she says, what she thinks, is from the Holy Spirit, who can help us, then? Not judges, not doctors, no king or emperor, because [reason] is the Devil's greatest *****."

"Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his reason."

~Martin Luther

Anyway, moving on...

Super cool idea: So I think this discussion is going nowhere and is an eyesore in the general discussion forum, and possibly serves only to alienate other members. What if we took this to our personal TT blogs instead? I would normally suggest we all STFU and take this to IM, but that would become an even worse cluster-fuck so out of hand that nothing would get solved. Yea or nay?

1. My apologies for forgetting to state that I was not using the DSM IV definition of sociopath. I was trying to use a gentler form of the word asshole. :lol My point is... that one needs to examine the entire palette of causes before jumping to the conclusion that there is any one cause to anything.

2. I did not state at all that conflicts do not arise over abstract beliefs. I am stating that conflicts do not always arise when two or more people have differing belief systems. People of differing beliefs can play nice in the sandbox together. So since one can not state with 100% accuracy in all situations that philosophical conflict is the root of all evil in the world one must look to baser reasons for people's actions. There are the factors of economics, politics, personal grievances, etc. that also lead to conflict.

Concerning the conflicts of Islam and Christianity, yes religious differences were a contributing factor to the atrocities committed between the two cultures. However one can not ignore the contributions of regional politics and economics to those conflicts. Many times the religious views of those involved were manipulated to push political, economic and military objectives.

It is not all black and white.

 

[likeasong1]

This is poor, and incorrect logic. Religions aren't proven false just because there are no reasonable grounds for believing them, are they? It won't be proven false unless there is absolutely undeniable proof that it is false. As long as the Salvation Army continues to hide it's fiscal actions, there will be no undeniable proof.

But in a court of law, they wouldn't have to. The fact that there isn't concrete evidence against them would be evidence enough that the statement is libelous, since in making the original statement in the first place, the burden of proof is on the one who calls them thieves.

If it will undeniably prove his existence, then why shouldn't he? There is nothing clear at all about that choice. You can't pretend to know the intentions of some divine being that you have never seen or heard before. If God won't acknowledge the laws of Science, then Science won't acknowledge God.

He shouldn't because it is a demand made out of arrogance. You say you won't think of Him as all-powerful if He doesn't perform as you demand of Him. But "all-powerful" doesn't (merely) mean the abilities to do things that would make the X-Men look like ordinary people; all-powerful refers (moreso) to His dominion, His authority. If He submits to your arrogant demands, who's the one with authority then? That is why He shouldn't, because it is not a request made to lay or strengthen the foundation of faith, but an attempt to put something else on the throne in place of Him, which will ultimately fail. But again, any bit of proof shy of Armageddon/Second Coming/Rapture would just be dismissed out-of-hand by you, and the arrival of the aforementioned event(s) would be too late for you. Even as Jesus himself said (and I'm paraphrasing here), "The unbelieving generation asks for a sign! But know this, there will be no sign except the Sign Of Jonah." And in his telling of the parable of the rich man and the poor man: "They have the Law and the Prophets. If they would not believe them, they would not even believe a man returned from the dead." The signs are not necessarily those that have to be believed to be seen, but those that are not believed even when seen.

PurpleStyle, if you wish to take it to blogs, PMs and such, I think that's a fine idea, so as to stop cluttering up the forum with it, and try to have discussions in other matters. However, since you have stated already that you cannot respect my point-of-view, and at times made it seem that you possibly cannot even respect me or the fact that I live my faith out in peaceful, productive ways that John Q. Public would call "beneficial", I think you can already logically conclude that my participation in those discussions would be minimal at most, even as my (and yours as well) interest/participation in this thread has dwindled.

Peace be with you. (Take that however way you wish, I mean it in a good way)

 

[Mash]

But in a court of law, they wouldn't have to. The fact that there isn't concrete evidence against them would be evidence enough that the statement is libelous, since in making the original statement in the first place, the burden of proof is on the one who calls them thieves.

Well, thank the Lord that nobody's going to court. However, you're forgetting that slander would not be correctly used as a charge. I already told you the definition, which does not go along with what Ariel said. Lack of proof does not objectively excuse them from open criticism.

He shouldn't because it is a demand made out of arrogance. You say you won't think of Him as all-powerful if He doesn't perform as you demand of Him. But "all-powerful" doesn't (merely) mean the abilities to do things that would make the X-Men look like ordinary people; all-powerful refers (moreso) to His dominion, His authority. If He submits to your arrogant demands, who's the one with authority then? That is why He shouldn't, because it is not a request made to lay or strengthen the foundation of faith, but an attempt to put something else on the throne in place of Him, which will ultimately fail. But again, any bit of proof shy of Armageddon/Second Coming/Rapture would just be dismissed out-of-hand by you, and the arrival of the aforementioned event(s) would be too late for you. Even as Jesus himself said (and I'm paraphrasing here), "The unbelieving generation asks for a sign! But know this, there will be no sign except the Sign Of Jonah." And in his telling of the parable of the rich man and the poor man: "They have the Law and the Prophets. If they would not believe them, they would not even believe a man returned from the dead." The signs are not necessarily those that have to be believed to be seen, but those that are not believed even when seen.

No. Now you're just being silly. This is why I don't think subjectively; it only leads to absolutely petty thoughts.

The fact that everyone calls him 'God' is proof enough that his authority is secure; no need for him to get his panties in a twist, nobody is trying to surpass him.

Also, by this logic, God will NEVER (Not that he ever has, so maybe your logic has some merit) answer a prayer. If you ask a task of a divine being, you are asserting your authority over them by telling them to do something for you.

If we look at this objectively for a second, even if scientists asked for undeniable proof, would they surpass God? No. Would they become more powerful than him? No. Would they command more authority than him? No.
So, rather than being petty and childish, we can PROBABLY put on our big-boy pants and show ourselves to humanity, lest they destroy themselves through this absolutely POINTLESS fighting.

We need undeniable proof. Anything short of God coming down here himself, in full view of every recording device in the Northern Hemisphere will not do. Anything that is not undeniable will be up to interpretation, and that will lead to more of this God damn fighting over whose magic-man is the right magic-man. (Not that it matters in the first place)

 

[melbournianguy]

Wow....what an interesting thread.
My two cents motivated by logic.
I rank a being on compassion. The more altruistic compassion a being has the more likely they are to be intelligent. I would think that any creator would be truly compassionate and truly altruistic. A creator would be above such primitive emotions as hate, jealousy etc. As the world is full of pain and suffering therefore there can not be a god. A god would have compassion and love and would not allow suffering (no action is action). As there is so much suffering there can not be a god. The god in the Christian tradition isn't too nice. In the old testament he happily slaughters millions, asks for blood sacrifices and orders out nasty punishments. These behaviours are "man-like" behaviours not "god-like" behaviours.
We just have to face the fact there is no god and we have to strive as a species to have more compassion than the 2000 year old man written text that much of western society is currently based on.

 

[Mash]

And then the thread died.

Probably because most people are tired of arguing about it, which I understand. x)

 

[Garr1]

If there is no matter then there is no dust particles. Particles are still a form of matter. In fact the base form of matter is energy, which makes the theory of particles moving together insignificant, because even if it is true that planets are created this way you'd be left with the question of how particles were made or where they came from. Not to mention that if there is no matter there's nothing for gravity to exert force onto. If I misunderstood your point in any way forgive me.

According to Einstein's principle of mass-energy equivalence, matter and energy are equal. The mass of a particle is merely the lowest amount of energy that it can carry which causes weak and random vibrations that prevent it from being at an absolute zero temperature and allow it to interact with its surrounding environment. In fact, because energy is the capacity to do work, the gravitational force exerted by particles increases as its energy increases, meaning that the particles that have a higher amount of mass and equivalently a higher limit on the lowest amount of energy that it can carry generate stronger gravitational fields. The gravitational fields also grow stronger as more and more particles come together because their force fields reinforce one another. Another way to increase the energy of the particle and thus its gravitational force is to increase its velocity or vibrational frequency. When this happens, the particle gains an increased level of kinetic energy and thus its capacity to use gravity to attract other particles increases. This is best summarized by the fact that the law of relativity states that the force of gravity and the force of an object accelerated to a particular velocity are physically identical except for the fact that an object moving at a particular direction exerts most of its gravitational force towards the direction of its movement and a reaction force caused by the object's inertial mass which is in turn caused by its resistance to motion is exerted in the opposite direction. While an object with a stable position with random quantum mechanical fluctuations and other movements kept to a minimum exert gravitational force in all directions.

Additionally, according to the laws of energy and matter conservation, matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed but instead change from one form to another. Now the elementary particles that make up the universe are indestructible because they are not composed of smaller building blocks. Evidence of this comes from the fact that the universe did not emerge out of nothing, but from a hot, dense state called a singularity which eventually expanded because heat energy caused the quantum tunneling of particles in a process called hawking radiation, forcing the particles to be ejected from this compact cluster of particles at a given rate. Hawking radiation is caused by the heat energy of the singularity counteracting the gravitational force that binds the matter together in the singularity. Eventually the singularity will evaporate and all particles will leave this compact point in space and expand outwards in all directions, resulting in the Big Bang. Now the singularity on the other hand can be caused either by the collision of matter from other universes or the collapse of a previously expanded universe in a phenomenon called a Big Crunch. In conclusion, the matter in the universe is not created but instead moves endlessly from place to place and assembles together randomly to form composite material structures.

 

[likeasong1]

Whatever shall we do now... Have wholesome scientific discussions?

Or probing theological study.

 

[Garr1]

The regions of empty space are not actually made of nothing but are made of, as stated, by the Higgs, Graviton and Acceleron particles. As a matter of fact, even outside a galaxy, it is still possible to see the galaxy because of the photon particles being emitted by the stars and black holes of these galaxies so being outside a galaxy does not mean being in a total vaccuum. These three particles are said to be present in the vaccuum and give rise to the energy within that vaccuum. I simply did not mention these particles because they have not yet been experimentally verified. The Acceleron mentioned additionally is said to exert a powerful repulsive force that counteracts the forces of all the other types of particles in the universe and this repulsion is what causes the accelerating expansion of the universe in what is said to be a Big Rip.

 

[Mash]

The regions of empty space are not actually made of nothing but are made of, as stated by the Higgs, Graviton and Acceleron particles. These particles are said to be present in the vaccuum and give rise to the energy within that vaccuum. I simply did not mention these particles because they have not yet been experimentally verified. The Acceleron mentioned additionally is said to exert a powerful repulsive force that counteracts the forces of all the other types of particles in the universe and this repulsion is what causes the accelerating expansion of the universe in what is said to be a Big Rip.

Are you referring to Dark Matter and Dark Energy, perhaps?

 

[Garr1]

Yes. Though the properties of these entities are not yet fully understood, the fact that they cause phenomena means that they may exist. As a matter of fact, even outside a galaxy, it is still possible to see the galaxy because of the photon particles being emitted by the stars and black holes of these galaxies so being outside a galaxy does not mean being in a total vaccuum.

 

[Mash]

Well, Dark Matter has to exist. They've run simulations on how Galaxies work, and every time the galaxies fell apart. There wasn't enough gravity to hold them together. That is why Dark Matter was established. We don't know what it is, or how it works; we just know it has to be there, or else galaxies wouldn't have enough gravity to stay together.

I don't think there is such a thing as a 'total' vaccuum. Not in our Universe, anyways. Space is a vaccuum, but not a complete one. When orbiting a planet, shuttles need to speed themselves up occasionally due to the various molecules of air that have extended just past our atmosphere. These molecules cause friction and drag, which slows down the shuttle.

 

[Garr1]

True, quantum mechanics is an accurate way of describing the entropy of the universe and the multi-verse which are just gigantic random event generators that exist for no reason. Also, science is an ever expanding field of study because there are always new things to be discovered. If given that there is a multi-verse and it is infinite, then the number of new types of particles that give rise to entirely different phenomena is innumerable and science may go on making discoveries forever. But some things do not change regardless of how much science advances and these are the facts that all of the phenomena discovered by scientific progress are impersonal, inanimate, reproducible, materialistic, and infinitely repetitive. Now, the elementary particles that are the basic building blocks of the universe are definitely not thinking beings or alive, they are mindless and dead and everything uncovered by scientific progress fits this system when broken down to the fundamental level, even the human mind. So religion cannot fit into such a system because it espouses the existence of spirits and deities whose bodily and mental functions cannot be broken down to basic materialistic processes but can still achieve more complex functions. This is completely unrealistic from a mathematical, scientific, and logical perspective because every complex system must be reducible to its functioning component parts and without these basic constant, repetitive and partially indeterminate functions, a more complex operational system cannot be assembled. This is also true with mathematics and logic because more complex formulas and propositions cannot be established without first assembling simpler functions such as using the repetitive addition of like values to achieve multiplication and repetitive multiplication of like values to get exponentiation. A simpler function on its own cannot process thoughts or even be considered alive for that matter because living and thinking are the product of a combination of plenty of simple physical processes to achieve a higher more complex process.

Therefore, the constitution of the universe as described by the advance of science is a purely materialistic one. The universe is made up entirely of elementary particles which give rise to all of the phenomena occurring in it. Furthermore, the characteristics of all of the forces discovered by science throughout history have remained unchanged and these characteristics are:

1.) Inanimate - the forces are not alive.

2.) Unconscious - the forces are not self-aware or aware of the environment.

3.) Impersonal - the forces are not capable of free thought since they are too fundamental to be capable of such complex behavior.

4.) Infinitely Repetitive - the phenomena can occur an infinite number of times in indefinite frequencies because the energy used to power the phenomena which are mediated by elementary particles are always conserved.

Aside from the law of conservation of matter which proves that there is no instant of creation, compelling evidence that the universe arose from materialistic processes and not out of a complete vacuum comes from experiments done recently in Brookhaven New York for generating black holes from gold nuclei which have shown that the universe originally came from a singularity of compressed matter which evaporated due to Hawking Radiation and caused the elementary particles trapped within to expand outwards and assemble the other entities in the universe. Based on the overwhelming evidence provided by the advance of science, everything that exists are the product of mindless materialistic processes and is never done deliberately or with good reason, it is because of this that the answer to the question regarding the meaning of life is that life has no meaning but is instead just another set of materialistic processes which have occurred entirely by accident. It is not the universe but the flaws in the reasoning of intelligent life which are again the fault of quantum indeterminacy errors in materialistic processes that cause intelligences such as humans to construct imaginary reasons to provide a purpose for existence.

The quotes below show some of the views held by the famous scientists who have made major contributions to science and have provided evidence disproving the possibility of existence possessing any meaning or the existence of supernatural phenomena.

"The universe is governed by the uncaring laws of matter which don't give a damn about us and will not make miracles happen on our behalf." –Thomas Alva Edison

"The belief in the Word of God is a sign of human weakness." –Albert Einstein

“This present-day version of God of the gaps goes by a fresh name: ‘intelligent design.’ The term suggests that some entity, endowed with a mental capacity far greater than the human mind can muster, created or enabled all the things in the physical world that we cannot explain through scientific methods. An interesting hypothesis. But why confine ourselves to things too wondrous or intricate for us to understand, whose existence and attributes we then credit to a super-intelligence? Instead, why not tally all those things whose design is so clunky, goofy, impractical, or unworkable that they reflect the absence of intelligence? And what comedian designer configured the region between our legs-an entertainment complex built around a sewage system? Stupid design could fuel a movement unto itself. It may not be nature's default, but it's ubiquitous. Yet people seem to enjoy thinking that our bodies, our minds, and even our universe represent pinnacles of form and reason. Maybe it's a good antidepressant to think so. But it's not science-not now, not in the past, not ever.” -Neil de Grasse Tyson

View this video as well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDgzRIiQ4b8&feature=player_embedded

 

[likeasong1]

Why of course we can have theological discussions. Those are fun.

A theological discussion means a diploma in theology is not wasted.

Yes, there is that. There's also that faith is deepened, interpretation is given more dimension, and of course that God is understood better instead of having off-base assumptions and accusations smeared onto Him.

But yeah, not wasting a theology degree is a good thing, too.

 

[likeasong1]

Don't think I'm neglecting you Mr. Likeasong.

Now, what would you like to discuss theologically.

I'm open to discussion.

Would you be actually respectful of my religion, faith, and the personal applications it has meant for me in my life - both in things that I do and that have happened to me; or would it be absolutely dismissive, often condescending, and sometimes even pejorative of not just my faith but that of everyone else's?

 

[Mash]

I can be respectful on the condition that you would be respectful of the ancient Greek’s beliefs of Zeus and Apollo and ancient Egypt’s belief in Ra and Osiris and the Norse’s belief of Thor and Odin, and the beliefs of the southern Islands tribes in the great JuJuu in the mountain/volcano.

I have to agree. You can't ask one belief's community to respect your belief if you neither respect theirs, or anyone else's.

You can mock my belief's all you want. Atheism is just a belief that goes along with science peacefully, so I don't care if you make fun of it. You certainly can't disprove it, at any rate, so there's no point for me to get horribly defensive about it.

But, I'd do it with caution. Saying that Atheism is untrue with the follow up of, "Because this book says so" is not a reasonable argument. Atheism is easy to defend because there is no scientific evidence to claim that there is a god. While that doesn't necessarily mean there isn't one, it's more convenient than trying to validate the existence of a deity with science.

Obviously I can't speak for anyone else, but my Atheism derives more from a lack of evidence rather than evidence that contradicts the idea of God, since there technically isn't any. Evidence is what it boils down to. Likeasong constantly throws in the argument that we can't use physical evidence as an argument since God transcends the physical world and science...but we can't use faith either, bud. Faith differs from person to person, and it's impossible to use such a varied tool as a proper measuring device in the validity of ANYTHING. Evidence is all we have in this regard, and if we throw out evidence, then we are literally left with nothing, so why even argue about it?

Think about this for a second. If we don't use evidence, then I could say that the Bible was written by a one armed, three legged, transsexual Martian donkey and it would be as equally valid as Christianity's view on the subject. Without evidence, the possibilities are so endless that you can't even BEGIN to argue about which one is correct.

 

[likeasong1]

I can be respectful on the condition that you would be respectful of the ancient Greek’s beliefs of Zeus and Apollo and ancient Egypt’s belief in Ra and Osiris and the Norse’s belief of Thor and Odin, and the beliefs of the southern Islands tribes in the great JuJuu in the mountain/volcano.

If they are what you actually believe, then yes, I would be respectful. Even if it's not, I would not be disrespectful to those who did in those times when they were the mainstream religions. I may not understand those belief systems, but I can be respectful of them.

Mash, I haven't mocked your beliefs, at least not knowingly/intentionally. I have tried to be as respectful as possible, trying only to respond in kind to the tone I perceive from somebody. I have tried to be open and understanding, and if I don't believe it, I'll say "I don't believe it", not "I couldn't believe that, therefore it can't true." I've been trying to get respectful discussion out of this... that's all. I know no one here's gonna convert because of anything I say. I'm just trying to make it clear that my beliefs deserve just as much respect as yours. PurpleStyle explicitly said she cannot do that, and I suspect that drire (how is that pronounced anyway? Dr. Ire? Dree-ray?) is pretty much just toying with me with no intent to even initially be respectful of my beliefs.

I didn't say you can't use physical evidence, but since I DO believe in a God that holds dominion over science, I believe that trying to rely solely on physical evidence is going to give you an inaccurate portrayal of who God is, and honestly an inaccurate portrayal of who WE are, since science is not the end-all be-all of the human existence. I feel like you are trying to take the humanities out of humanity.

In the end, all I've been looking for someone who doesn't believe to simply and sincerely say, "That's cool that you have faith, and try to use it constructively for society and live harmoniously with other people, while still being interested in the world around them. Good to see that a religion at least is useful to one person. I guess God can't be all that bad if there's someone doing good with the idea of his existence." But I can't even get that. I feel like the only reason atheists tell Christians to be respectful of other faith systems is so the atheists themselves don't have to be. And in all honesty, that's what this whole thread has been about: trying to make Christians and God Himself the bottom of the Atheists' Port-A-Potty.

 

[Doc Rock]

science is good, I plan on getting a bachelors in forensic science. However, the two things you never talk about with public people: religion and politics. Period. everybody has a right to their beliefs and YOU have no (damn it!!) right to take that from us!!! and you also have NO right to SHOVE your STUPID ways onto us!! You have no right to force YOUR beliefs onto us!!! WE believe what WE CHOOSE to believe and you have NO right to take that from us!!

 

[Mash]

As far as I'm aware, you haven't mocked my beliefs, openly. It'd be stupid of me not to think that you were giggling about them on the inside. Again, I don't care if you mock my beliefs. Go for it. My beliefs are backed up by modern, scientific findings, so you'll be mocking that, too.

Ah, and Doc? Talking about Religion is perfectly fine so long as people can stay civil about it. If you put too much stock in your beliefs, then I can understand why people would get so defensive. My belief system can change anytime. If I'm presented evidence that a God exists, I would gladly become a believer.

Try to be less adamant about any one type of belief. You tend to look more like an idiot if that belief turns out to be wrong, and a bit of a fanatic if it turns out to be right. We aren't shoving our 'stupid' ways onto you. However, if you feel that science is stupid, you can probably just go find a nice Amish village to settle down in.

Oh, and your comment about Forensic science made me giggle. The irony is palpable.
You do know that forensic science consists of using the evidence around you to make reasonable, logical conclusions, right? Seems like a 180 from your current one.

 

[Mash]

Frankly, the US government is being nice enough. Religion has been the unchallenged authority for waaaaay too long, as far as I'm concerned. The constitution gives both of our sides the ability to express our views on the subject, and I'm going to take advantage of that right.

Authority is something that is earned, in my eyes. I will never bow down to any organization/deity that hasn't proven itself to me. I have seen no evidence of a deity, and the organizations that support that deity are spreading inconsistent information that has been proven false.
In the old days, I would have been killed for saying these kinds of things, and THAT is why religion ruled unchallenged for such a long time.

The worship and belief in a God is fine. I don't have a problem with that. What I have a problem with, is spreading lies, and slandering the beliefs of others ONLY because they don't agree with yours.

When I discredit a belief, I do so with evidence. Not silly words out of a book.

 

[PurpleStyle]

science is good, I plan on getting a bachelors in forensic science. However, the two things you never talk about with public people: religion and politics. Period. everybody has a right to their beliefs and YOU have no (damn it!!) right to take that from us!!! and you also have NO right to SHOVE your STUPID ways onto us!! You have no right to force YOUR beliefs onto us!!! WE believe what WE CHOOSE to believe and you have NO right to take that from us!!

That works both ways. I believe that religion is stupid, so religious people have NO right to SHOVE their STUPID ways onto us!! :lol

 

[likeasong1]

Thank you drire.... I am still curious though, how do you pronounce your username?

 

[Mash]

So...I recently saw a friend of mine's status update on Facebook. It read, "God is the best! I'm so glad that I can be a tool in God's great plan!"

It really perturbs me that he only thinks of himself as a tool. I genuinely hope that, that is a thought process unique to him. Being a tool because you're too stupid to realize that you're being used is one thing...but to willingly step up and allow yourself to be used...it just seems utterly demeaning. The lack of self-respect I see there is astonishing.

 

[likeasong1]

So...I recently saw a friend of mine's status update on Facebook. It read, "God is the best! I'm so glad that I can be a tool in God's great plan!"

It really perturbs me that he only thinks of himself as a tool. I genuinely hope that, that is a thought process unique to him. Being a tool because you're too stupid to realize that you're being used is one thing...but to willingly step up and allow yourself to be used...it just seems utterly demeaning. The lack of self-respect I see there is astonishing.

I think "tool" is simply for want of a better word, though it correctly does assess the Christian's belief of the power of a single person compared to the power of God. I do understand their feeling, though. I would say a closer analogy would be "team member," that they get to be part of His team to accomplish something for Him.

 

[sadi]

God's great plan parody comic.

I refuse to justify posting this other than the sheer merit of posting it.

Amusing, but... I don't 'quite' get it. :huh
:lol

 

[Mash]

The urge the contradict myself, rising! … Now risen.

Okay, it’s in response to the quote.

“God is the best! I'm so glad that I can be a tool in God's great plan!"

The question: What is god’s right to assign, determine our actions?

Isn’t the idea of having kids to make a world for them to be truly free, and not simply the tools and machinations in some incomprehensible “plan.”

When you are born of your mother, is your umbilical cord not severed? Are we not independent beings; sufficiently self-sustaining patterns of thought and aspirations?

Do we, whether arising from a system of probability functions in accordance to a ruleset, or creations of some maker not have this right to independence?

Are we a disposable experiment or are we not the children of dust?

If you want to understand their view point on this, you have to throw away science and evidence for a second.

They believe that God created everything; that he gave us all that we have. They believe that he is all powerful, and that he controls every little thing that happens on this planet, and the universe.
We have to step away from things like science, because science undeniably proves that things like volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, tsunami's...they're caused by measurable, observable events that are caused by other measurable and observable events; not some deity.

In their eyes, God has every right to assign us our place in the universe, since he essentially is the reason that we're here.

However, that is wrong. God isn't the reason I'm here. I'm here because of the biological processes that occur during conception. Unlike Jesus, my mother was not supposedly knocked-up by God. If my mother tried to tell me that I was born from the holy ghost, I'd tell her to quit lying to me and tell me who the affair was with.