Scott Mayers

I interpret government as our means to DEFINE morality. In nature, there is none other than the INDIVIDUAL'S interpretation. The concept of 'good' (to which "God" is a different spelling of the original meaning) only originates as a kind of early childlhood program that begins with a blank slate. This 'program' when it intially runs will DEFINE anything it receives during specific events as 'good', in the same way God, in the Judea-Christian Genesis begs God as merely defining what is 'good' by what it is. Religion only evolved FROM 'politics' (a poll among people's different opinions). So religion does not 'own' morality because it is merely begging some kind of supernatural authority along with some mythical made up history to justify the belief that SPECIFIC actions are somehow 'good' or 'evil'. Nature is 'nihilistic' and does not care what we think. Each animal also has this 'program' mentioned above because it is necessary to define what to SEEK in the environment. My problem is that governments that are permitted to use religion within it, are bringing in anti-rational, anti-scientific beliefs that lack actual universal agreement nor 'fit' to the reality of nature. ALL our political problems initally stem from governments USING 'religious' assertions to rationalize those in power to do ANYTHING! You cannot think that 'religion' is ONE belief. And if it is some possible fact that a God exists, it should be irrelevant to a system that PEOPLE create that is both BY them as it is FOR them. Thus, the reasoning for the American's First Amendement. We lack this. And in actualilty, that preamble dictating that 'we' respect this country as 'founded' upon God, it intentionally UNDOES any 'universal' statements that directly follow because it is an intentional 'condition'! It permits governments to create things like 'hate' laws. It might help to think of what its direct opposite could be: 'love' laws'. Obviously, the only such emotionally laden terms is justified ONLY through the auspices of those privileged people who think they have unique personal access to some God! So we need to keep religion OUT of the political realm altogether. It can justify ANY government's behaviors ARBITRARILY when permitted.

Well, you are asking the right questions. But the particular physics are too deep to discuss here properly. The only reason I mention these at all is due to the accusation that the atheist is somehow the deluded person for believing that we could derive from nothing. To summarize the point I am making regarding this... If absolutely nothingness could NOT originate anything, then all things always exists and literally nothing is false ANYWHERE in Totality which automatically includes 'abolutely nothing' as ONE particular concept. And if one thinks that 'God' is the answer, it begs what God is (as a representation of Nature itself) if it lacks the power to create from 'nothing'. So philosophically, you are correct: we don't really 'create' from nothing. But WHAT we create, if it is novel (new), is derived from a RELATIVE state of nothingness (versus the absolute). But note that all nothings are nevertheless 'equal' in meaning and is a property of everything. [For an example, try to imaging what any specific point in space is. Each point in space is "nothing". Yet the combination of such points infinitely create everything.]

Most of the media are owned by 'segregationists' of some sort. Those most absurdly over-representative in media and television are Jewish and pro-Israeli to some degree. Outside of the U.S., they are NOT legally considered 'white' regardless of their overrepresentation of 'whites' in media. They learned from the past that the means to prevent their destruction (as from things like the Holocaust) is to capitalize on media. But given the dominant Christianity of the past also despised "usury" (the means of making money from the middle of transactions), the Jews had a background of 'media' control (I'm using 'media' now for its root meaning, "the middle"). I'm being matter-of-factly here to point out that those who link being Jewish as Semitic, are to me, just as racist too but can get away with this due to the Holocaust and why their specific constant advocacy to keep it in the minds of everyone. It MASKS their own racist ideal of being 'superior' (God OR Nature's 'chosen' ones implies being 'superior' in kind). While we need to point out these facts, it is almost blasphemy to do so and why WOKENESS is so effective to CONSERVE the cults of those pluralities who are unrepresentative as 'majorities' normally. But as you should see, by me pointing this out is what helps justify why the Left tries to tie the Right to "White Supremacists". The reason the Right doesn't point to this specifically is precisely because it would 'justify' the stereotype of the "Neo-Nazi" regardless of any logical point being made. There are pro-Israelis on the Right but given that side's philosophy is about ECONOMIC 'freedoms' versus CULTURAL 'freedoms', they would also not want to directly point out the White group thinking on the Left who have the same views. Instead, misdirection is their means of keeping people confused by promoting 'fake news' mixed with the real so that no one can tell the difference anymore. I HATE politics. (Is that a 'hate crime'?) But I CAN see what is going on by all sides. We are embracing the 'tribalism' that defines 'fascism' regardless of cultural or economic sides of the spectra.

Then you can't read correctly. I complained in that post how the Left tends to be always controlled by the 'racist' non-traditional groups based upon the very KIND of thinking that exists on the traditional groups on the Right. That is, the complaints about the Left falsely presume that those of us who like the 'liberal' ideals support Identity politics when it is only the plurality of those religious ethnic groups that THINK the same as the dominating conservatives of the Right: The Right are traditionally 'racist' by majority standards; the Left are non-traditionally 'racist' but by the collective pluralities of religious-based cults. (I use 'cult' to emphasize how arguments about conserving "culture" are based upon extreme religious segregationists....on any political side...and that terms like "Multiculturalism" (Left) are "Monoculturalists" (as the Right is normally) but are hiding the religiousity under the banner of 'culture'.) Thus the rhetoric on either side are controlled not by the actual individuals because of the power of dominating cults rule as the largest PLURALITIES dominant on each side. They are predominantly 'racist' equally but differ on their rhetoric. Also, the Left has been increasingly learning FROM the rhetoric normally exclusive to the rich Right wingers who believe in caricaturing people by stereotypes. The Left cannot advocate SPECIFIC favor due to the collective agreements among the dominating cults to define the smallest 'minority' BY those cults. They cannot 'agree' to the same conservative views because they come from diverse groups with very distinctly different ideals. So they simply agree to segregate the people into a 'mosaic' of ethnicities and why they are acting as they do. Those Left' OR 'centrist' Whites who still happen to have the larger plurality regardless opt to use the rhetoric of 'virtue signalling' because they TOO have a risk of losing their wealth in distribution ideals FROM the Left. So they act 'woke' by the standards of those like Malcolm-X rather than Martin Luther King. Malcolm-X was a 'segregationist' advocating SPECIFICALLY for his own race where MLK was a 'universalist'; Thus the "Left" is today being overrun by 'segregationists' precisely because ALL the ethnic cults are threatened and are becoming more CONSERVATIVELY protective. So the point here is that what those on the Right are complaining about the Left for being 'woke' haters of the "Whites" (and let's not forget, "Male") are nevertheless as racist as the extremes OF the "White" supremacist stereotypes they too point to. The reality is that there are some groups, like the Jewish ethnic segregationists, who like to keep the rhetoric of pointing to the Right-wingers as "White Supremacists" as do other ethnic segregationists on the Left (mostly) because its MEANING is to divert attention away from the WHITES in power among the Left, but are not generally OPEN as the same contingency of the Right. That is, the Left is defining 'white' as particularly the European caucasians and EXCLUDING the non-European whites, like the Semitic, or Arabic, for instances. Do you get it now?

I argue that 'dark energy' is just the energy of any point in space and derives from 'contradictions', manifested as direct collisions that have no other dimensions to transfer energy from. So it finds these points as 'new' points in space. The 'energy' then is the expansion of space itself. Dark matter is the phase of random points in space of the latter new points that spin creating curved paths (rather than Newtonian straight lines). It is 'dark' because light is dependent upon matter, NOT the other way around that the Big Bang interpretation assumes. This though is a part of my own theory and while others in physics may 'agree' they often have to fit it into the normal accepted theories (or they'd be burdened like I am to have to go back and undo a lot of mis-interpretations. )

I believe that IF (a condition) there IS an 'origin', then it is from absolutely nothing. But if there isn't, then the Steady State type of theories applies by default. The Big Bang theory relies on assuming the universe's appearance of being 14 Billion years old is due to a REAL singularity rather than the perception. Steady State differs in that it assumes an infinite space-time. However, note that my argument is about Totality, not merely our particular Universe. I define it as an absolte total collection of any realms real or not. Then the 'metaphysical' argument I have from abolute nothingness is as equally applicable to any God or gods, heavens, hells, et cetera. BUT, you should be aware that most original religious sources also hold that God created everything from 'nothing'. So your particular religious opinion is distinct to modern interpretation of religious scriptures and is usually more 'Right' wing religious.....intentional literalists who cannot recognize the materials as being originally from non-religious thinkers speculating on reality. The original word for YHWY, for example, meant 'source'. And the reason for the 'INEFFIBLE' nature of the word that used to refer to God creating everything from nothing today devolved to mean "unspeakable curse" to say God's name. The original meaning was about questioning how God could have derived everything from nothing. Note that "YHWY" is pronounced, "Ya way' but is more correctly "Ya ovey" [v sound turns into w] and meand, "the egg"; the Greek becomes, "Je ova" (Jehova), which helps notice how this came about from "the egg". The perfect oval (or egg) is the sun's shape as a circle and given Judaism evolved from Egyptian's sun-worship, you have to look back into the Egyptian origins to understand the original thinking. The term "Nile" hints at this given it meant what we now use as "nihil" or "null". The supposed sky god, Nut, is also where we get "nothing". I'm only giving some basic note of these as it relates to Nothingness. The confusion for others like you existed in the past as well and why the evolution of interpreting God's name as so sacred that it could not be stated. The philosophers would have tried to say to the layperson that the original 'creator' (whichever that could be) derived itself from 'absolutely nothing' but is "ineffible" (hard to speak about) given it cannot be true NOW! No time 'exists' at such an origin. So the argument is the same that later interpreters redefinition of God as a literal person-like being rather than merely "the source" or the related similar generic terms, like "lord" (owner of the Universe) being one: If absolutely nothing existed, it had nothing to OBEY, such as 'laws' nor 'logic'. At such an origin, it is then also true that it has no law preventing it from 'creating' anything; In fact, it 'creates' the laws and logic of our particular universe. To many, this became a magical supreme God rather than merely Nothing. The intellectuals who first questioned these became the authors of what became things like religious scriptures. But the interpretations passed on came from the naive minded 'simpletons' dominating the political power over historical documents.

It was to the 'Great American' who just happened to comment to you, not you. But the content is equally applicable for anyone religious and at least entertaining for the non-religious.

Note that it is the extreme 'conservatives' within the 'liberal' side who controls what gets stereotyped. I am liberal but do not get noticed for being white and non-affliliated with any cult, religion, or culture. The Right has its extreme that IS usually (but not ONLY) 'White' supremacists. So be aware that the very same thinking occurs on both sides but the dominant groups default to the 'conservative' side; the X-supremacists on the Left are more varied and they take over the normal 'democratic' position of independent individuals. Since the plural groups exist more on the Left (for not being 'dominant'), and are collectively 'dominant' in power there. They would refrain from being considered 'Supremacists' but are in meaning. BUT, the conservatives on the Right who are extreme would not want to reduce the power of cultural law making. As such, THEY control how the Left reacts most specifically. I don't know the solution other than to change all constitutions to an American First Amendment type of decree BUT with clearer and stricter attention to assert that no CULTURE nor RELIGION can be specifically able to alter laws to enhance favor for SPECIFIC favor nor disfavor. I thought the original amendment in the U.S. was good but clearly they have also enabled religion, as a 'cult(ure)' to IMPOSE 'God' at least in general, ...a form of usurping the original intent to EXCLUDE them. But given most people are religious in general, they simply agree to lock out the non-theist. For example, the U.S. introduced, "In God we Trust", a clear violation of the original non-theistic intent of the law. Here in Canada, they cleverly hide religion as a function under 'culture'. But the same arrogant religious people (ALL the dominant ones) have co-opted this too and WHY we get the supremacists ruling us. Canada would need to rid the royalty's presence at the very least. We would need the opening religious conserving statements and favoritism to the catholics (Anglican and French/Roman) as well as to any perpetuous protections for any "nations" or "discrete" people based upon its racist identity.

If gun owners are themselves rightous to assert absolute autonomy for defining themselves as 'law abiding', then let us 'law abiding' citizens also have a right to wear explosive vests too! We should also let us 'law abiding' citizens have our own nuclear bombs too! If deterency is presumed to make for 'peace', then given we are all born 'innocent', if we all had guns and explosive vests an nuclear bombs provided to each of us, we'd BE "law abiding" and thus have a very peaceful world!

I'm 'liberal' but agree in part. The vast majority of people on the Left are still from discrete cultures OTHER THAN the caucation 'majority' who are themselves just as biased in their thinking. Racism and Sexism are always defined as belonging to all others but those accusing. The majority everywhere prefers some right to pass on inheritance to their loved one's which includes their ideals they hope to pass on regarding things most especially surrounding their ethnicity and/or religion. As such, when we do well, we pass on FAVOR to our own children and whichever pool of dominant 'culture' we personally place on a pedestal. This 'nepotism' is the beginning of what BECOMES the biases we do not normally reflect of ourselves. We also oppositely believe in NOT passing on inheritance of DEBT. Instead, this gets passed on to the general population. These two 'heritage' factors set the stage. When you succeed, you would prefer to pass on your gains to your loved ones' while preventing the passings-on of those things and behaviors not desired (collectively, our 'debts'). So the next generations who have better parental success will repeat the pattern. Eventually, a pool of concentration of wealth will tend to favor some races/sexes over others until some large imbalance of representation exists. The same but opposite effect occurs to those who fail. Their children DEFAULT to inherit an ABSENCE of power which then in direct opposition to the wealthy, will eventually concentrate those races or sexes in common to a DEFICIT that will eventually explode if there exists no means for them to get ahead in the same way. As such, those with the strongest 'pride' in their own who excludes things like intermarriage, will become 'racist' and 'sexist' but with an apparent absense of DIRECT abuse towards outsiders because they don't NEED to. On the other end, the impoverished masses who get LEFT OUT will push back but being already on the losing end, they will tend to be NOTICED more for their behaviors given they are going to be inevitably less friendly. Since we live in a relatively richer country, it is hard to notice how our nepotism contributes to racism/sexism (systemically) and why I think you may not notice it as existing. To obvious poorer communities who will favor those parties that lean 'left', they will appear to be making a fuss where none exist but often ignore the problem as due to 'poverty' and not necessarily race. As such, they too contribute to being racist and sexist where they suddenly get attention and interpret their condition as having an INTENTIONAL (non-systemic) cause. Both contribute but only those at the top have the power to change things IN PEACE. But they want to 'conserve' their right to KEEP what they have with the continuing 'right' to distinctly pass on beneficial inheritance onto their OWN kinds. Some will reflect on their own contributing causes but still do not want to lose their right to pass on their OWN cultures. As such, they will tend to be 'apogetic' for a whole race/sex UNWARRANTED but are doing this so that they do not feel compelled to literally give UP their own inherited power. By extending their own 'wealth' class to the dominant race they have, they conserve their power while the poorer OF their race are the ones' who will take the weight of debt when they get denied the same reparations or government aides that get 'inherited' to all others of the minority of the poor. Thus, you get the angry backlash of those whites who also happen to be poor regardless of what they do. Those with the ACTUAL hate there will get the notice of the Left even if they are non-representative of the whole. So the real reason is about haves and have-nots, and how we today still believe that we should have the independent right to pass on our beneficial inheritance to those of our choosing while the poor are forced to inherit both their LACK of wealth PLUS any burdens of the 'debts' that even rich people contribute for NOT requiring to pass on those debts. Note that in most times, "inheritance" was assumed to include debts. So if your brother, say, caused a debt, you as his brother might 'inherit' that debt. While unfair, it actually respected the meaning of 'inheritance' fairly by MEANING. Today, we grant the rich an accellerating power where weallth generate multiple powers of wealth. We also permitted means of hiding or passing on debts by the wealth through corporate laws that permit them to never lose anything but their present investment. This 'limits their liability' to the investment. To me, the solution requires creating more limits to corporate protections as well as preventing independent rights of one to pass on benefits to those they personally favor through inheritance. We also need to expose how religion gets used as some virtuous 'right' that enables one to excuse why they have some sovereign right to KEEP their power to selective inheritance. Our "Multiculturalism (TM)" is used this way. While it is a "leftist" ideal, the dominance of the 'conservative' GROUPS, defined in terms of one's ethnicity or heritage, dominates and rules equally on the "right" by default of coinciding rights of inheritance. These clearcut groupings frame the smallest minority as some GROUP and their associated cultures leaving out the independent individuals of all racial backgrounds who don't conform to some steretype. So you get the 'white (and male)' racists on the right, but most of the others hidden within the 'mosaic' groupings dominating the 'left'. We need to clearly separate both 'culture' as well as religion in govnernment, abolish rights of personal inheritance beyond sentimentals, provide social supports for those suffering most, and cap wealth. [I doubt this will occur and it may be impossible given our normal evolutionary instincts to conserve.]

? If you only knew what my own physics theory is, you wouldn't be asking me this! Haven't you also not noticed that I asserted above that we derive from absolutely nothing?

For most of world history, the atheist was treated as 'criminal' regardless of the fact that the 'gods' you claim to believe assert us as having 'free choice'. So the atheist was condemned and speaking openly about it was a death sentence. So duh.....would an atheist in power risk asserting it? No. In fact, it is most likely that given most of the world who relies on deception to 'capitalize' upon other's stupidity, ....even if MOST of the world's power were sincerely 'athiest', they would both pretend NOT to be AND discourage others from admitting it because most the most politically effective means of control requires demanding FAITH of the sheeple they are controlling. I mean, certainly if you think being religious makes you somehow wiser, could you not notice that the most evil thing one could do would be to pretend to be religious but promote all others of just the opposite? So before you condemn the atheist, maybe you should reflect on what you are advising: that the honest atheist should either get with the program and PRETEND (like you) to be devoutly religious or risk death and suffering! We are all born 'atheist' and your own pretentious assertions about religion should require you ask why you need other humans to teach you anything 'religious'? You should also require to disprove all other religious beliefs. Isn't it odd to you that if you are born in the U.S. you are more likely to be Christian but if you were born in India, you'd more likely be Hindu, for instance? If there were a God, would it be religious? That is, do you expect it to be 'faithful' to something beyond itself given it already IS and KNOWS all? If it 'created' us, what did it require to make us? If it didn't 'create' us from NOTHING, what was it that it 'created' us from? If you are sincere, you are absurdly irrational. If not, you are being deceptive. Challenge: prove that what you just read has substantial existence in MEANING! That is, do the thoughts you interpret from these words as you interpret them, themselves have a real existence?

Did they think to take pictures of their vacation in paradise? And why did they come or get sent back here? I think that we should rightfully be skeptical of mere claims of those who cannot be ruled out as merely reflecting mental illness or intentional deception meant to manipulat others.

Thats okay. We are ALL disordered due to Original Sin. Some are overeaters, drunkards, gluttons, anger issues . . . whatever. Many folks have a variety of sexual disorders too. Your son only has to do something that is very simple, but very unpopular: He must admit to himself that he has a problem, and practice abstinence. Much like the alcoholic who is in denial for years, then finally admits to himself that he has a problem and seeks support to stay clean, the homosexual also must finally admit to himself that he has a problem and seek support to stay clean. Its really no different. We are all sinners who need a savior. Your sons only real problem is that the world is telling him that his sin is not a sin, and he might be believing them. The original 'sin' is a precursor to the meaning of 'sin' as some evil refers to the 'shun'-ing of the Tree of Wisdom. It did not connote something necessarily bad but a promise that they will not like to learn what the gods knew. The tree symbolizes the secrets of Nature (or for the religious, God), which came from meaning the part of nature that is DEFINES 'good'). The word, Eve, means "All that follows" and so evil means "that which 'fell' " ["fell" describes the sun as it falls in every evening and how it 'follows' each day.] So.... 'sin' is what defines 'evil (that which fell) from paradise. That this happens to be interpreted as something bad is only about how no one could interpret God (the 'good' source of Nature) as defined the 'bad' reality of our inevitable DEATH. Jesus, 'salvation' was about permitting deserving people an eternal life in Heaven ("heaven" is originally from what 'follows' above Adam, the word for that which is below.) [And where the Greeks "atom" also comes from as meaning the most elemental earch.] Now you no doubt think that the above is 'crap', right? But when you get more mature and curious to grow up, try to take time to notice that it demonstrates what the ORIGINAL authors of Genesis were using the story to explain: that when young, we are naive and unable to handle discovering the actual truths regarding God, Nature, or ideal 'goodness' because it is an illusion for children being cared for by those matured loving adults not wanting to scare them but who are themselves cursed as adults to KNOW that Nature is actually more 'cruel' than good and that we are all going to die necessarily. And, ....that there is no fairygodfathers anymore than there is a God! So, You only have to do something that is very simple, but very unpopular: YOU must admit to yourself that you have a problem, and practice abstaining from religious beliefs. Much like the junky who needs to first admit he even has an addiction,the religious extremist must first recognize their religious immature beliefs are extreme before they have a reason to want to stop being extreme. This goes witout saying. Then you can take a bite of that fruit ....learn the actual truth about what is or is not real, and the irrational child may then BECOME a rational adult. Its really no different. We all shun hearing that we are all going to suffer and die and so we need some myths to make children not become too fearful from having to grow up. Your very real problem is that you are no longer a 'child' but still believe that playng pretend and shunning intelligence IS a sound and appropriate decision. The 'we all sin' point is moot if you think that you are the wiser for shunning wisdom and leave the cradle of your childhood playpen (Eden.) Its' time to learn to wipe your own ass. Note that if you want to argue againt homosexuality, you can't use your selfish religious authoritarianism to dictate how others should behave. I ALSO happen to disagree to those assuming gender is something one is born while still believing people should not be shunned for their choice to be in a consenting relationship. But you are not seeking rational arguments but proselytizing like a cult recruiter serving his leader in absolute blind faith.

Thank you for your immature anti-intellectual response. If you don't like to argue your point of view but prefer only to insult, that is what Twitter is designed for, ....emoting ones feelings unqualified. What you don't seem to notice is that you require tying a real name to your opinion or it is doubtful you are sincere. But you'd make a good Nazi. They preferred simple statements and actions without requiring intellectualizing it. They prefer such means of deception too.

I just reviewed the linked YouTube video "Why You Should Be a Nationalist" and commented there in defiance of their claim. Historically, "Nationalism" used to refer to one's Nationality, their ETHNIC ancestral relationships as a 'people', not merely the country. The "National" in "National Socialisn" asserts that a particular extention of family and tribe should DEFINE the constitution of their country, as a SINGLE "nation". Todays perverted meaning of 'Nation' to mean country is ONLY a coinciding reference to one's people within a country as sharing their 'nationality'. To the Germans, they were the 'aboroginals' who demanded respect of them as having the 'FIRST NATION', a people that no longer identified the makeup of their country preWorldWartimes. The point the video made regarding supporting "family, community (tribe), and nation" is the actual part that the Nazis were demanding they should re-constitutionalize as a SOCIETY (the 'Social" in National Socialism). The generic term 'fasci' comes from the bundle of straws OF THE SAME KIND that has weakness only as independent straws. This is a univeral TRIBALIST position meant to entice those of a shared PARTICULAR culture to embrace so as to STRENTHEN their STRAIN because they believed one's intrinsic genetic inheritance is in sync with their ancestors ideal 'culture' being fostered. The term, "National", thus, only coincideds with a boundary IF that coutnry is PURE in one SINGE type of 'cultural' identity within those borders. However, "nation" is the PEOPLE of a given ethnicity regardless of borders except if proposed to constitutionalize their Social platform to FAVOR the given Nationality. An example of a "Nation" is a tribe of people like the Cree (Nation) aboriginals who are not confined to a specific country's border but to their ancestral family. If a country like Canada becomes specifically made up of Cree Nationalists, and the country gets redefined to require Society repect them with priority, their people BECOME the country's legitimate 'Social' identity based upon their specific Nation, ...them being Cree, for this example. Countries like Israel and Saudi Arabia are thus National Socialist examples given they constitute the society based upon a genetic ancestral association along with some presumed 'culture'. For Israel, the cultural link is being Jewish, the genetic tribe they coincidingly believe in is being purely Semitic, a purity of race defining their fasci.

You would be surprised what I know about science. I know a number of things like the big bang and evolution are purely speculation and unproven. Science does not claim to have all the answers and never did make such a claim. When it comes to the origin of the universe, there is absolutely no evidence or proof that God did not create it ten or fifteen thousand years ago, with an apparent age built it. Many of the greatest scientists in history believed in God. They could see the evidence of God's creation all around them and just accepted it. How does the Big Bang theory relate? I agree to the perceptive that it was a type of 'explolion', but am a bit confused at you not recognizing that there are other non-Big-Bang theories proposed. But even given these different PHYSICS theories, how does the religious idea relate uniquely as an alternative to them all? "Religion" [From Re-legion "speak of legacy"] which denotes ideas passed down by distinct ancestral history and what is believed to have happened BEYONE LIFE or 'other' worlds, times, or spaces. emphasizes "culture", art, or lifestyles" that are mostly arbrary and contingent factors, Religion though is cultural (social)"science", considered as a form of art(ificial) concept versus science as referring to physical reality. ....or....what "science fiction" is to "science fact"; You can permit rellgion to fantasize about origins without a need to observe any common facts or proof. That is, religion can philosphize about reality but it can't speak for it without having some shareability to anyone arbtrarily and that doesn't begin with our particular senses we share in common.

You are too much of an imbecile to even engage any further. I only speak with intelligent adults. Hey, that snake is a feature of that Tree of Wisdom you were told you can't eat from even though God could have opted simply not to plant it or chop it down! Our French Patriot here is unabashedly 'naked' without apology. But ask him what is French for "I am christianized good as any King." Then ask yourself who might you refer to the man who dared to tell the Emperor of Rome this. That is, what would you name this traiterous commie who insults his superior?

"So were some of the worst evil tyrants in history"? Given there is no god, all of us are 'athiests' at birth. We don't have any default beliefs about "God" any more than a cow we eat does. But then our parents' pass on stories about what they WANT their children to believe, with others in our society adding to it in our 'positive' accolades like, "you too, can be anything if you just believe," and you gain an emotional connection to those beliefs. Thus, many like you, become religious when they grow up still playing 'pretend' like Adam and Eve in the garden before they are exposed to the secret about God's wizardry in an apple. [Obviously you haven't yet left your childhood naivete and refuse to eat of the Tree of Wisdom, am I right? You believe it is 'evil'!, yes?] So you come along and assert some invisible magical being exists that appears so real to you as though you don't notice how obviously naked you really are. [Hmmm, reminds of an equally very old tale you might have heard: "The Emperor's New Clothes". ] I come along and dare to tell you that the the only thing I see of your invisible 'God' you wear so proudly, is nothing but your naked self. But you won't know this until after you bite into the fruit of wisdom in order to advance beyond your playpen. The secrets about reality, like the powers of the gods, are unfortunately based on nothing! THAT is the lesson of the 'gods' secrets. We are cursed to discover that there are no dieties but for what we create in our heads about them and there will be no paradise in heaven for us to go to after our deaths. DEATH is final! Until then, you are too naive not to notice how all 'tyrants', like all people, are atheists by default. The myths of religion is representative of the Garden of Eden's children. The despots are spoiled in playing pretend for being so privileged. So given there are no gods, ALL reality is born out of 'nothingness'. Nevertheless, the tyrants will be the ones to demand belief in their own power either as a 'god' themselves, or as being 'annointed' his right-hand man by God. The choice of most tyrants is to some form of religion, not athiesm. Why would they want those they rule over to have a weak capacity to BELIEVE in them most significantly? How could they actually rule so absolutely without some faith?]

Although already mentioned, if your magical being, "God", can create from nothing, I think your own logic is amiss. The correct logic is based upon the following argument: (1)Assume absolutely nothing. (2)Then one thing exists. (3)The prior statements. (1)and (2) are 'contradictory' but where only an Abolute nothing exists, it necessarily follows. The alternative is to have Absolutely Everything. So... (4) Assume Absolutely Everything. (5) Then Absolute Nothing is included as ONE of these truths. This requires interpreting worlds like a monitor in which every pixel in every possilble resolution define distinct worlds. Most 'images' are nonsensical and so lack meaning. But for those worlds that happen to FIT a consistent pattern, these are worlds that act as 'consistent' and like our as one of them. Contradiction-free versions perist and define what 'evolution' is on a logical and physical level. Note that it is alright for Absolutely Nothing itself to BE 'contradictory' afterthefact looking back because at its origin, if an origin does exist, then it has no LAW (nor lawgiver) to ABIDE by, in the same way you would interpret your 'god' as having.... minus any complex human-centric imposition upon it as a function of Nature.

Hmmm. And how does your 'God' manage to do it? If your God creates, does it use factors that already also happens to exist appart from itself? Or does it 'create' from nothing? Which is it?

Literally, Abolultely Nothing!! It is a logical and mathematical construct of which our Universe is only one of a contunuous infinity of possibilities. Ordered universes that happen to have strict patterns become worlds that are manifest into what we perceive as something more 'special' than it is.

I just have to stop you here. The "Torah" is the first five books. I am well versed in my history and strong skeptic against religion in ANY form of government position.. A 'god' would not be so powerless as to require human will power to make if feel adequate. The ONLY reason religion has even gotten as far as it has so far is due specifically for those who want to rule with a means to excuse their accountability to God's command and to entice the dumbing down of the average intelligence to encourage BLIND faith in PEOPLE, not God. If God is powerful, it doesn't need your arragant DICTATORIAL means to inform us of its exitence. Given you are anti-evolution, you lack even the respect of what "Nature" does that you oddly go against. Didn't your 'god' create nature? I was born of nature. If you were not a product of evolution, you are not a product of Nature and so should just go back to whatever alien planet you came from. Governments that permit religion are severely intolerant and dangerously unaccountable to the people for "democracies". Jerusalem (from "Je Ra Sol amen" [the last post of the fallen Egyptians meaning the "The end of the sun's rays" and was at "David" (the 'divide') between the 'Asher Ra El' [Assyrian people which where "Israel" comes from], and Judahs ("judges" given they were literalists of the original Egypt consevatives before the divide of "Saul" who is also the reference to the original "Sol" Intentional distinct spelling is political; most didn't even write and based their words on how the SOUNDED, not spelled.] You most certainly get your own propaganda through your religion and given most other COMPETING religions your news is the perfect reflection of "fake news" throughout history. All religions begin by utterly destroying any prior history that might competently point to them as being less genuine. Egypt was the original home but since the fall of that ASSYRIAN-related dynasty fell, Babylon took over the Middle East while those in Judah (not 'Israel') had the last remaining Egyptian temple. The 'ark of the covenant' was literally a ceremonial boat that held likely a broken obelisk of Akenaten's city moved to the 'desert', "Amarna". [That was the foreign Assyrian 'moses' who tried to impose his single religious 'culture' but got kicked out to the desert for a generation (40 years). [https://news.cnrs.fr/articles/the-lost-city-of-akhenaten] Notice the similarity to the temple of Jerusalem. The reason others didn't accept his attempt to unify others to a single culture relates to the fact that the general Egyptian society was relatively 'multicultural' and the 'temple' was originally a public place for ALL people. They were kind enough to at least just kick him out. That chase where god supposedly 'divided' that last dynasty is why "David" is a common reference for Palestine. I can go on. But even if you disagree, you have to repect that politics that utilizes religious laws are dangerous for all given anyone can make up a story that some magical being came to them and told them to do x, y, and z, arbitrarily. As for your own Rightwing Christianity, the renewed version that praises the rich and annihilates the sick and weak in direct opposition to the original communistic version that appealed to the poor, your leaders do not approve of anything referencing 'evolution' of which the Big Bang happens to differ from Steady State in regards to assuming physics at a prior time was (magically) different than today. It is NOT related directly to biological evolution or evolution of physical stages of development (using a universal physics). THAT evolution is thus still true about reality of which ANY physics theory would accept other than the religious extremes that WANT their religious mythical interpretation of reality of the past to be true. Rich and powerful 'lords' (originally a derogatory reference in which asserting the source of life (YWYH == ye oveh meaning 'the egg' or 'source') was argued to be the ONLY true owner of land and so did not approve of those who did settle. "Jew" means 'wander' and referred to the non-owners who had not settled, similar to the American Indians. Your PARICULAR religions thus EVOLVED memetically, a word referencing the social evolution of words like 'genes' (and why the name "meme" came about). But it 'devolved' in that it once begun as non-religious as those hated communist countries that tend to fall by first recreating religion through its leader-worship. In time, the real history gets distroyed OR mislinked to its origins and ta da.....we get EXTREME religions that have their realities misplaced in myth and other magical thinking. ....OR..... ...you are as clever as the most 'evil' (from Eve and el, meaning the "fallen one") athiest. I mean, if we were so disgracefully the most cunning deceivers, wouldn't it be most rationally evil for an atheist to CREATE religions? You should think about this one hard given such deception would more likely have such leaders PRETEND they were 'religious' to rule as your church leaders!! So if you are NOT just another wolf dressed up as a sheep, would you rather gamble in those politicians who ARE 'religious' but more incentivised to BE atheists? Are you not actually intentionally discrediting non-believers as a means to innoculate the masses into FAVORING the trickster's capacity to USE religion in politics? Would you PREFER that I hide my atheism and PRETEND to be religious like the rest of you? I assure you that such people exist!! And the ONLY rationale for Rightwing ideals of capitalism to be againt evolution is because pure capitalism IS a form of 'economic Darwinism' that proves just how natural evolution works when left free to act. So strong conservatives who sell religion are either the stupid members of the flock or are deceptive atheists conning others. Which is it?

As for those doubting evolutionary theory here, I can competently argue on this and can even show how the religious person woud also likely adopt it if they took care to reflect on some things about what they (you) know. So if you want, I can try to 'prove' that you doubters would agree to 'evolution'. But it might not necessarily defeat your religious view. Rather, it may make you less 'extreme' about it as a concern.