T-Nation Atheists

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
556

[quote]makkun wrote:
todd,

toddjacobs13 wrote:
mfurci wrote:
FightingIrish26 needs to brush up on his or her history. The Holocaust was perpetrated by nazis who beleived in mysticism and the paranormal. Hitler was the center peice of there beliefs. Dictators do not allow freedom of religion and have killed 10’s of millions; ie, Josef Stalin had an anti-religion campagne and killed more than 20 million Russians. And most genosides are most certainly done with the absence of religion, athough a few have been performed in the name of it.

Throughout history the nonreligious have done much more harm than those beleiving in a higher power. Next time research bfore you write. That goes for most who have responded.

Like those non-believers of the Crusades? Or the non-believers who orchestrated the 40 Years War, and the Spanish Inquisition, and the 100 Years War, and the Franco-Prussian War, and World War I, and the American Civil War, and the French Revolution, and the Japan’s actions within China, and Muslim attacks on Armenians, and… do I really need to go on? You would actually have a difficult time naming a significant number wars that were fought by professed non-believers.

Anyway, there are well documented connections between the Nazi party and the Catholic Church (with the very notable exception of Dietrich Bonhoffer). The Nazis were certainly into mysticism also, but the claim that they were somehow not largely composed of and connected to Christians is not supported by the facts.

Todd

I agree mostly. Given the fact that political leadership until the 20th century was in most cases legitimised by some form of divine blessing, it’s hard to find a conflict that did not have fervent support of some organised religion.

That doesn’t make religions not worthy of existance, but it relativises claims for moral leadership IMO.

Some further sources & comments:

Bonhoeffer was not a catholic, he was lutheran.

His “Bekennende Kirche” movement was a counter-movement to the nazi “Deutsche Christen”.

Find here a source, how quickly the Vatican bowed to Hitler:

“[…]In the Concordat, the German government achieved controls over the traditional autonomy of the church by requiring an oath of Allegiance and its priests to be Germans and subject to German superiors. The Church’s independance was further crucially weakened by complete proscription of all clerical interference in the political field (articles 16 and 32). Restrictions were also placed on the Catholic organisations. The negotiation effected the dissolution of the long-standing and constitutionally inclined Centre Party. The Nazi government succeeded in silencing all their Catholic critics and in allaying popular distrust in its anti-church NSDAP manifesto[…]”

Makkun (confessing atheist)[/quote]

Makkun,

I appreciate the correction. I learned about Bonhoffer in Catholic school and always just assumed that he was a Catholic.

I don’t blame religion for all of the wars that I mentioned. I was just disproving the ridiculous assertion that non-believers have perpetrated most of the inhumane acts during the course of history. The Nazi Party’s connections to mysticism is a matter of public record, but so is their connection to European Christian organizations.

Overall, I think you and I agree more than we disagree, but thanks for keeping me honest. :stuck_out_tongue:

Todd

557

[quote]pookie wrote:
So there is something that is impossible for God?
[/quote]

Free will by it’s nature with indicate a hands off approach from God.

That makes the assumption God was created. Theology doesn’t hold that concept. That assumption would make man equal with God, so it doesn’t apply.

People all ready do that.

People have already done that too.
Remember though these are self imposed limitations. I.E. God won’t mess with free will. Free will is such an ingrained part of theology, that many have stated that is what is meant when it says “created in His image”.

I kind of never left that spot. As I said self imposed rules.

Free will bares a heavy responsibility. I once heard someone say that the price of freedom is personal responsibility for it. The reward of slavery is blaming everyone else.

To me all of Christianity rises in falls on Christ. To some the evidence is suspect, to me it is compelling. You can take all of theology, and the other issues. Christ is the only issue that matters.

I think the NT deals with that issue very well. Paul says that you should love your wife as Christ loved the Church. God merely cast the blame of sin on Man; however the culture plays a part in the way some things were taught.

The entire beginning befere hezekiah of the Bible is under archealogical debate last time I checked, so I have no comment on it.

no clue. Theology holds that only Adam would have been missing a rib. Which would mean a literal interpretation of Genesis.

I think depends on if He influences your free will. Since time would technically exist to God, He could move in and out at will. Leaving Him able to know all that happens, but not requiring Him to force those things.
Foreknowledge doesn’t = foreordained.

no you can’t surprise Him, but that doesn’t mean He is pulling the puppet strings either.

Sure. you tell me what attributes you want to define, and we will define them. I would do it myself, but you have some specific things you want answered so why bother with the things you don’t care about.

doubt it, but don’t tell Ted Williams family that.

it is implied in the NT
“for by one man’s sin death entered into the world”.
or
“Trading the incorruptible for the corruptible”
or
“oh death where is thy sting? Where is thy victory”

You wouldn’t be an atheist anymore! :slight_smile:

I am ok with that. This discussion could go in a lot of directions if we allow it.

A Catholic might tell you yes. I have not found where a second chance repentence is provided for by scripture. I do think that eternal shame is better than Hell fire though.

Yeah I would be all over that!

I think test is a liberal use of the description. The hebrew word for devil/satan means adversary. Christians hold that Satan is trying to take everyone down with him type of theology, and God is trying to bring everyone up with Him. not so much of a test as a picking sides kind of thing.

Interesting side note: Jews believe the Devil is nothing more than an agent of God, and that his very purpose is not contrary to God, but in accordance with His will.

You would be surprised many early Church fathers didn’t believe in a literal 6 day creation either, and wrote about it. So I take the science part with a grain of salt. It isn’t a science book, so I don’t get caught up into it.

The problem is literalist are really contradictory in their very reading of the Bible.

558

[quote]sasquatch wrote:

I always find those that profess not to believe are about the angriest and surest people in the world. Sad really.

[/quote]

I agree but I find this to be true about the most ‘religious’, obsessive fire-and brimstone crowd as well. Both those going on about hell and damnation and eternal salvation and those insisting in equally loud voices that there is no way at all that God exists, seem to be the most pugnacious, repugnant, and generally miserable people around to me.

Not so for middle-of the roaders who are secure in their relgion and beliefs and may practice to varying degrees and would like to espouse their view to people who are interested. Nor for people who are genuinely unsure of the exsitence of God and tend not to believe but don’t altogether discount the possibility. I don’t quite understand how anyone can say there is no God 100% sure. There are great and unexplained mysteries in this world.

559

ok, so this thread has taken an interesting turn for the better. I have a couple of questions:

How many people that go to church are actually going to heaven? The ones that are playing Occam’s Razor.

If a person were to lead a good life, helping others, living very similar to what the bible says, but IS NOT a christian, let’s say it is pookie, but he lives a more honest, more caring, more helpful life than 99% of christians out there, will he go to heaven?

As a follow up to the above question, if he were not to go to heaven, but some mass murdering rapist who confessed his sins did, why should we even want to go the heaven in the 1st place?

This 1 will be answered by the above 2, but what about all the people that have never heard of god or Jesus, let’s say some tribe in the middle of the amazon. Are they simply shit out of luck?

How about other religions? Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. They all prey to a god (or supreme being), I watched on that barbara walters show where she was trying to find out about heaven that some evangelist said all these people were screwed, no heaven for them. Is he right?

that’s all for now, most of those questions are on the same lines, and might have been answered, I just forgot the answer. Thanks goes to agshag/haney for sharing your thoughts with us.

560

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
sasquatch wrote:

I always find those that profess not to believe are about the angriest and surest people in the world. Sad really.

I agree but I find this to be true about the most ‘religious’, obsessive fire-and brimstone crowd as well. Both those going on about hell and damnation and eternal salvation and those insisting in equally loud voices that there is no way at all that God exists, seem to be the most pugnacious, repugnant, and generally miserable people around to me.

…
[/quote]

The either extreme is full of strange, bitter people.

561

[quote]Ren wrote:
ok, so this thread has taken an interesting turn for the better. I have a couple of questions:

How many people that go to church are actually going to heaven? The ones that are playing Occam’s Razor.

If a person were to lead a good life, helping others, living very similar to what the bible says, but IS NOT a christian, let’s say it is pookie, but he lives a more honest, more caring, more helpful life than 99% of christians out there, will he go to heaven?

As a follow up to the above question, if he were not to go to heaven, but some mass murdering rapist who confessed his sins did, why should we even want to go the heaven in the 1st place?

This 1 will be answered by the above 2, but what about all the people that have never heard of god or Jesus, let’s say some tribe in the middle of the amazon. Are they simply shit out of luck?

How about other religions? Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. They all prey to a god (or supreme being), I watched on that barbara walters show where she was trying to find out about heaven that some evangelist said all these people were screwed, no heaven for them. Is he right?

that’s all for now, most of those questions are on the same lines, and might have been answered, I just forgot the answer. Thanks goes to agshag/haney for sharing your thoughts with us.[/quote]

It appears that the Bible depicts Him in more relaxed judgements towards those that don’t know, but personal accountability plays a part. I would really prefer to defer this question to a web link not because I don’t want to discuss it, but because it is such a complex topic that requires alot of information. I think this guy did a good job of describing God as a fair judge to those that are ignorant to the gospel.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/hnohear.html

562

[quote]Ren wrote:
ok, so this thread has taken an interesting turn for the better. I have a couple of questions:

How many people that go to church are actually going to heaven? The ones that are playing Occam’s Razor.

If a person were to lead a good life, helping others, living very similar to what the bible says, but IS NOT a christian, let’s say it is pookie, but he lives a more honest, more caring, more helpful life than 99% of christians out there, will he go to heaven?
[/quote]

Everyone will face God in the end, and will be accepted if they are TRULY sorry for their sins and willing to accept God.

Everything we Christians do, Baptism, Sacraments, Fasting, going to church etc. is psychological exercise to prepare us for this.

It may sound like an easy test, but its not. It is possible that everyone can repent and accept God, but if you live outside of Christ’s church, it may be very hard for you to even recognize what’s going on at the end. Someone who all their life has not even accepted that there are such things as “sins” has built a psychological profile for themselves that will make it pretty darn hard to be truly sorry for their sins.

Someone who has rejected God’s very existence may not even see what’s going on at the end, may find it impossible to want to be with God, etc.

Conversely, someone who has died a martyrs death, refusing to deny God will not have that much problem.

Someone who fits the Pookie profile is just going to be too confused by their own self worshipful model to be able to pass this simple test.

563

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
sasquatch wrote:

I always find those that profess not to believe are about the angriest and surest people in the world. Sad really.

I agree but I find this to be true about the most ‘religious’, obsessive fire-and brimstone crowd as well. Both those going on about hell and damnation and eternal salvation and those insisting in equally loud voices that there is no way at all that God exists, seem to be the most pugnacious, repugnant, and generally miserable people around to me.

…

The either extreme is full of strange, bitter people.[/quote]

Agreed. I also believe that angry extremists are by no means limited to the arena of religion.

Todd

564

[quote]haney wrote:
“oh death where is thy sting? Where is thy victory”
[/quote]

Haney, just wondering where the original quote is from, Isiah?
RESURRECTION HOMILY
Saint John Chrysostom
LET ALL PIOUS MEN and all lovers of God rejoice in the splendor of this feast; let the wise servants blissfully enter into the joy of their Lord; let those who have borne the burden of Lent now receive their pay, and those who have toiled since the first hour, let them now receive their due reward; let any who came after the third hour be grateful to join in the feast, and those who may have come after the sixth, let them not be afraid of being too late, for the Lord is gracious and He receives the last even as the first.

He gives rest to him who comes on the eleventh hour as well as to him who has toiled since the first : yes, He has pity on the last and He serves the first; He rewards the one and is generous to the other; he repays the deed and praises the effort.

Come you all: enter into the joy of your Lord. You the first and you the last, receive alike your reward; you rich and you poor, dance together; you sober and you weaklings, celebrate the day; you who have kept the fast and you who have not, rejoice today. The table is richly loaded: enjoy its royal banquet. The calf is a fatted one: let no one go away hungry.

All of you enjoy the banquet of faith; all of you receive the riches of his goodness. Let no one grieve over his poverty, for the universal kingdom has been revealed; let no one weep over his sins, for pardon has shone from the grave; let no one fear death, for the death of our Savior has set us free: He has destroyed it by enduring it, He has despoiled Hades by going down into its kingdom, He has angered it by allowing it to taste of his flesh.

When Isaiah foresaw all this, he cried out: “O Hades, you have been angered by encountering Him in the nether world.”

Hades is angered because frustrated, it is angered because it has been mocked, it is angered because it has been destroyed, it is angered because it has been reduced to naught, it is angered because it is now captive. It seized a body, and, lo! it discovered God; it seized earth, and, behold! it encountered heaven; it seized the visible, and was overcome by the invisible. O death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory?

Christ is risen and you are abolished,
Christ is risen and the demons are cast down,
Christ is risen and the angels rejoice,
Christ is risen and life is freed,
Christ is risen and the tomb is emptied of the dead:

for Christ, being risen from the dead, has become the Leader and Reviver of those who had fallen asleep. To Him be glory and power for ever and ever. Amen.

565

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
haney wrote:
“oh death where is thy sting? Where is thy victory”

Here are two early sources
RESURRECTION HOMILY
Saint John Chrysostom
LET ALL PIOUS MEN and all lovers of God rejoice in the splendor of this feast; let the wise servants blissfully enter into the joy of their Lord; let those who have borne the burden of Lent now receive their pay, and those who have toiled since the first hour, let them now receive their due reward; let any who came after the third hour be grateful to join in the feast, and those who may have come after the sixth, let them not be afraid of being too late, for the Lord is gracious and He receives the last even as the first.

He gives rest to him who comes on the eleventh hour as well as to him who has toiled since the first : yes, He has pity on the last and He serves the first; He rewards the one and is generous to the other; he repays the deed and praises the effort.

Come you all: enter into the joy of your Lord. You the first and you the last, receive alike your reward; you rich and you poor, dance together; you sober and you weaklings, celebrate the day; you who have kept the fast and you who have not, rejoice today. The table is richly loaded: enjoy its royal banquet. The calf is a fatted one: let no one go away hungry.

All of you enjoy the banquet of faith; all of you receive the riches of his goodness. Let no one grieve over his poverty, for the universal kingdom has been revealed; let no one weep over his sins, for pardon has shone from the grave; let no one fear death, for the death of our Savior has set us free: He has destroyed it by enduring it, He has despoiled Hades by going down into its kingdom, He has angered it by allowing it to taste of his flesh.

When Isaiah foresaw all this, he cried out: “O Hades, you have been angered by encountering Him in the nether world.”

Hades is angered because frustrated, it is angered because it has been mocked, it is angered because it has been destroyed, it is angered because it has been reduced to naught, it is angered because it is now captive. It seized a body, and, lo! it discovered God; it seized earth, and, behold! it encountered heaven; it seized the visible, and was overcome by the invisible. O death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory?

Christ is risen and you are abolished,
Christ is risen and the demons are cast down,
Christ is risen and the angels rejoice,
Christ is risen and life is freed,
Christ is risen and the tomb is emptied of the dead:

for Christ, being risen from the dead, has become the Leader and Reviver of those who had fallen asleep. To Him be glory and power for ever and ever. Amen.

[/quote]

That is kind of nice mert. Thanks! I may never join the EOC, but I like your church more than any denomination. The more I read about it the more I feel in spirit with you guys.

566

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

Someone who fits the Pookie profile is just going to be too confused by their own self worshipful model to be able to pass this simple test.

[/quote]

So, being skeptical of claims of an almighty creator who is both loving and vengeful, forgiving and punitive, is self-worship? Searching for the answers instead of taking someone else’s word for it will get you a nice fiery spot in hell?

C’mon mert, where are your vague quantum mechanics references? It must be tiring being a saint AND a genius! Maybe your wavefunction just happened to collapse in a perfect state…

567

[quote]haney wrote:
Free will by it’s nature with indicate a hands off approach from God.[/quote]

I’m not asking for a puppeteer. I’m just asking can God create a sinless being that possesses free will?

According to Genesis, that was his initial plan, right? Adam and Eve were created sinless and they became fallen (I was going to say “they fell,” but that sounds like they tripped on a root or something) after being tempted by the Serpent (who God also created, right?)

I don’t get where that assumption comes in. We should clear this point: Is God A) Sinless, and B) possesses Free Will.

[quote]People have already done that too.
Remember though these are self imposed limitations. I.E. God won’t mess with free will. Free will is such an ingrained part of theology, that many have stated that is what is meant when it says “created in His image”.[/quote]

I find that it appears more probable that Man created God in his image.

Not you specifically, I was simply pointing out that you can’t have unknowable things or impossible things for God, less He not be God anymore.

Free will probably deserves it’s own thread. Let’s stick with God for a moment.

I find the evidence suspect because it is all circular and self-reinforcing. Jesus is the Son of God because it says so in the Gospels; which we know are true because they’re in the Bible; which we know to be the Word of God, because God tells us so in… the Bible.

Even then, that might work if the Bible wasn’t also filled with many passages that show an angry, jealous and petty God. And if it didn’t get so many physical facts wrong. Flat earth, the sun revolving around it. Pi = 3, etc.

Would a simple “Thou shall treat the opposite sex as thy equal in all things.” been that much more trouble? Was there a quota on the numbers of Commandments? God already wastes 4 on himself, he could’ve spared 2 or 3 and saved humanity a lot of useless suffering throughout the ages.

So there’s parts of the Bible you don’t believe? I’m not quite following here.

Not important anyway.

[quote]I think depends on if He influences your free will. Since time would technically exist to God, He could move in and out at will. Leaving Him able to know all that happens, but not requiring Him to force those things.
Foreknowledge doesn’t = foreordained.[/quote]

You’ll have to show me how they differ.

What the difference between having your actions foreordained; or choosing the of your own “free will” when God already knows all the choices you’re going to make.

He might as well. If he knows your life in every detail from beginning to end before you’ve lived it; what’s the difference?

Let’s start by the “Sinless” and “Free-willed” above. Let’s confirm omnipotent and omniscient; might as well also establish the omni-benevolent part (ie, infinitely good). Whatever else might be relevant; just exclude for now His Son, church and other extraneous details.

[quote]it is implied in the NT
“for by one man’s sin death entered into the world”.
or
“Trading the incorruptible for the corruptible”
or
“oh death where is thy sting? Where is thy victory”[/quote]

Unconvincing. I think “sin” is a moral defect.

It be hard to justify.

You guys scare me when you talk like that.

[quote]I think test is a liberal use of the description. The Hebrew word for devil/Satan means adversary. Christians hold that Satan is trying to take everyone down with him type of theology, and God is trying to bring everyone up with Him. not so much of a test as a picking sides kind of thing.

Interesting side note: Jews believe the Devil is nothing more than an agent of God, and that his very purpose is not contrary to God, but in accordance with His will. [/quote]

Well, Satan is also a creation of God, right?

In any case, if God did create the world in six days, He sure went to a lot of trouble to give every sign that it’s billions of years old.

They’re just reading the contradictions already there.

568

Has anyone seen the “Jaws of Satan” thread?

It seems to have vanished in a puff of sulfur and brimstone…

569

[quote]swordthrower wrote:
mertdawg wrote:

Someone who fits the Pookie profile is just going to be too confused by their own self worshipful model to be able to pass this simple test.

So, being skeptical of claims of an almighty creator who is both loving and vengeful, forgiving and punitive, is self-worship? Searching for the answers instead of taking someone else’s word for it will get you a nice fiery spot in hell?

[/quote]

That’s not what I said. I was asked what my Christian model of salvation was. I said that anyone could be saved. To be skeptical of a definition of God is good. If you deny belief in God for the right reasons, and you could still truly be sorry for and accept forgiveness for your sins in the end you will be saved-I believe.

So ask Pookie: If after death you find yourself facing God who shows you your life and asks you to accept forgiveness for your sins and unite yourself with him, would you?

My bet, but not my hope, is that he would just turn around and walk away, that he would be psychologically unprepared to accept or want it.

570

[quote]swordthrower wrote:
C’mon mert, where are your vague quantum mechanics references? It must be tiring being a saint AND a genius! Maybe your wavefunction just happened to collapse in a perfect state…[/quote]

And which quantum mechanics references were vague. Pick one and respond. You tell me what all-powerful means. I never said God was or was not all-powerful. I have always said that the words “all powerful” are incapable of being an accurate description. God’s power is undefineable. Omnipotent and omniscient were medieval terminonology. God knows everything-he knows you following one path, and he knows you following the other path, and all possible quantum permutations of your life. (If you don’t know what the word quantum means then throw it out-Its just a qualifier.) Assuming the age of the universe to be 15 billion years, there are about 10^187 different superpositioned states for the universe right now. They are all equally valid.

This is a very simple model of how free will and the absolute power of God can coexist and in fact it is all a semantic game on your part to create the dicotomies.

571

[quote]pookie wrote:
I’m not asking for a puppeteer. I’m just asking can God create a sinless being that possesses free will?
[/quote]
Yes, but He can’t keep that being from sinning if it has free will. Which means it is impossible to create a sinless free will being that can’t screw it up.

I think it was implied by something you phrased, then again I could have read into it.
A = yes
B = It appears He does have free will but all indications in the scripture seem to put Him under certain self imposed rules. (i.e. Fair judge, can’t lie, can’t be unjust, etc…)

could be, could also not be.

Maybe you can within the confines of what I described, or maybe our understanding of these things are all jacked up.

agreed, but it kind of comes in and out of this topic.

The gospels aren’t true because they are in the Bible. In my mind the convincing part is is the Disciples/apostles. The death for a possible fable, especially if the body was in the tomb, and in the same city they started in makes me think it is kind of tough to make it all up. With the deception of so many, and I could go on, and on but you get the gist.

The angry and jealous part is a different topic all together.

The facts: well that is attributing things to the english translation/meaning that might not mean that in Hebrew, and to the people of the day. It still isn’t meant to be a science book.

Well that is OT, and that is a different topic.

no, I said those parts are up for debate, and I have no comment because if it didn’t happen I don’t want to say it did, or even discuss it.

good enough

foreknowledge is me knowing when the roulette table is going to land on black. foreordained is me rigging the table to land on black.

The difference is one allows for autonomy on God’s part.

previous reply

Sinless: It is impossible for God to sinful since God since sin is defined as disobedience to God. God can’t be disobedient to Himself.

Free will: a choice to obey or to not obey God

God is omnipotent God appears to be able to work within, and bend the laws of Nature from a theological stance.

God is Omniscient He knows all

God is omnibenevolent He is a fair and just God.

could be, this is just how I understand the theology.

Not meant to scare anyone. It is just the theology of it. You should read that article I left for Ren. It does a good job on describing the fair judgement of God. I could be wrong, about all it. I could be right too. I am only suppossed to share what I know.

yep.

I think it was augustine who was the most well known who believed the 6 literal days was not true.

[quote]
They’re just reading the contradictions already there.[/quote]

That would mean you read the Bible the way they do. :wink:

572

[quote]pookie wrote:
Has anyone seen the “Jaws of Satan” thread?

It seems to have vanished in a puff of sulfur and brimstone…[/quote]

I was looking for it earlier. I never got a chance to view it! :frowning:

573

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
So ask Pookie: If after death you find yourself facing God who shows you your life and asks you to accept forgiveness for your sins and unite yourself with him, would you?[/quote]

Yes. Given those conditions, I don’t see how anyone could refuse.

Again, I’m not fervently hoping for nothingness when I die; I simply can’t honestly expect anything else.

574

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
This is a very simple model of how free will and the absolute power of God can coexist and in fact it is all a semantic game on your part to create the dicotomies.[/quote]

In your view, is God subject to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle?

575

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
swordthrower wrote:
C’mon mert, where are your vague quantum mechanics references? It must be tiring being a saint AND a genius! Maybe your wavefunction just happened to collapse in a perfect state…

And which quantum mechanics references were vague. Pick one and respond. You tell me what all-powerful means. I never said God was or was not all-powerful. I have always said that the words “all powerful” are incapable of being an accurate description. God’s power is undefineable. Omnipotent and omniscient were medieval terminonology. God knows everything-he knows you following one path, and he knows you following the other path, and all possible quantum permutations of your life. (If you don’t know what the word quantum means then throw it out-Its just a qualifier.) Assuming the age of the universe to be 15 billion years, there are about 10^187 different superpositioned states for the universe right now. They are all equally valid.

This is a very simple model of how free will and the absolute power of God can coexist and in fact it is all a semantic game on your part to create the dicotomies.
[/quote]

Here’s one that I found from an earlier post of yours (I must admit, mert, I do find your posts interesting, but as someone who studies physics, I agree that you are free to interpret physics however you want, but you have to admit that your interpretation is no more authoritative than anyone else’s).

[quote]

In the theory of relativity, matter moves through space and time in conjunction at a finite rate. The faster matter moves, the less time passes. Light has no reference frame.[/quote]

Not true! The true statement would be “Time passes slower for a moving observer with (observer A), according to the clocks of a stationary observer (observer B).” Time passes at its normal rate according to observer A.

[quote]
You called this gibberish. It is straight up definitions of the theory of relativity. Time is not a variable for a beam of light. Time has become completely space-like (again are you familiar with the term space-like from the theory of relativity?[/quote]

Uhhh, light is light-like.

[quote]

Matter/particles are composed of light which is bound by a force. There is a general tendancy in the universe for this light to become unbound. Once it becomes light, its reference frame is undefined and time ceases to be a valid variable for it.[/quote]

Is this a reference to mass-energy equivalence? Matter is not “composed of” light, just as light isn’t “composed of” matter. Remember, in nuclear reactions, while some of the mass-energy is carried away by photons, some of it is carried away by neutrinos and other nuclei.

What is the “tendency” of light to become “unbound”?

Anyhow, since I really don’t want to bicker back and forth much more, I’d like to say that the idea of intelligent observers being the only collapsers of wavefunctions is interesting. What comes to mind is this: You set up an automatic Stern-Gerlach experiment, and send it off into space. It seems to me that the film (or whatever records the two beams of electrons), would still have two marks from the spin-up and spin-down electrons. Since a piece of film is a macroscopic object, I find it hard to claim that the record of collapsed wavefunctions isn’t there, regardless of any observers being present.

It seems to me that the experiment itself has collapsed the wavefunctions, not any observers. But you could argue that since intellingent observers created the experiment in the first place, then they somehow set the collapsing into motion just by setting up the experiment…