Hinduism - bad example.

Buddhism - great example.

Personally I'm greatly interested in learning more about Buddhism but from what I have seen and heard it's all about the idea of making yourself happier and wiser through better living and meditation rather than through being promised supernatural rewards. Plus Buddha told his followers to follow no teachings blindly, not even his own. That gets mad respect from me.

Oh I'm not talking about the intention. I'm talking about the effect. There are definitely great people of all faiths who don't mean any harm. But the religions themselves have a controlling effect that gets some to do good and gets some to go crazy.

I've had many people pray for me because they honestly cared about me. I've also had other people tell me I'm an idiot and I'm burning in hell and I'll be tortured forever because I'm too arrogant to accept Christ's love.

Hey Rath, you know what you're supposed to do if you meet the Buddha walking down the street?

^Kill him (the Bhudda, I mean).

We've also had fanboys insult each other likewise, eh?

The nature of people has many unpleasentries.  And we might go as far to suggest that any warning has a potentially damaging effect; religions just have big ones, but it may not be worth the consequence of wishing to be without them (Pasquel's wager).

Pardon me if I sound argumentitive.

@Appolose,

Responding to bolded paragraphs...

Paragraph 1:

Nothing you stated here contradicts my point, we appear to agree.  Any energy external to the universal system is by definition not bound to our universal laws.  You are absolutely correct in saying that this energy could still be subjected to the same laws but the underlying point I'm making is that the 1st law of thermodynamics does not set out a requirement that the universe has supernatural origin and that natural origins have yet to be ruled out.  Note that the laws of physics in our universe are known to be heavily dependent on its makeup (and vice versa), even a relatively small difference in another universe could easily result in completely foreign laws.

I want to point out that my position is that there is insufficient evidence one way or the other, appeals to what seems likely from a given persons view is interesting and I believe it is an instrumental part in working our way towards a solution but alone I ultimately view it as an invalid basis for conclusion.

So, there is a real possibility that our universe could come into existence through natural means from nothing. As such we cannot logically deduce its origins are natural or supernatural.  The question is still unanswered.

Paragraph 2:

Again I agree. Philosophical skepticism's problems do not necessarily validate other schools of thought or even invalidate it, but its lack of producing a rational solution for even basic tasks such as eating make it very easy to rule out as a worthwhile endeavor to me personally. In short I'm uninterested in a debate on the topic because I don't believe it is capable of producing anything worth discussing.  If you'd like to keep it as part of your argument I'd just as soon not have the debate.  Not trying to piss in your cheerios (so to speak), but I don't like beating around the bush and pointing out the inherit uncertainty in all things however unlikely seems to qualify. I think you'll understand where I'm coming from though.

Paragraph 3:

The point is that you do not need to enter from the start of an infinite expanse to exist within it.  This is a misconception.  If we had to travel infinitely then yes there would be a problem but no such requirement exists. To use another very loose analogy you can picture the surface of a sphere as the model for a universe and all of its dimensions (time being latitude and  1-dim space being longitude).  Now imagine walking around the sphere(universe) in the time dimension until you get to the end or turning around to walk back to the beginning. Obviously you cannot reach either goal and would walk seemingly forever,  yet the total surface area  of the sphere (ie the area of  this universe's space-time) is non-infinite and the circumference around a specified  portion of the sphere (its history) is also non-infinite.  Understanding from above that it is possible for something to come from nothing you will see that there is no requirement for any "thing" to begin on the "edge" of a dimension. Please note that this explanation is actually somewhat redundant, parts of it are over explained for clarity.

Fundamentally we exist within dimensions not on them, the concept of entering is something based in our every day view of the world.  One of the reasons I mentioned the need to understand non-euclidean geometry before is because the majority of people have assumed our universe is based in euclidean geometry (ie what you learned in school where the function of a line is "y=mx+b" (where m=slope and b=y-intercept) etc... Now, even though euclidean geometry appears to work flawlessly in our daily lives there is uncertainty as to which form of geometry truly holds for the universe.  What we do know is that it must be a homogeneous and isotropic geometry which narrows it down to euclidean, hyperbolic, and elliptic.

I know you want me to post links but honestly the best I can do is suggest you read Roger Penrose's "The Road to Reality". It is a book steeped in the mathematical beauty and complexity of a number of topics including (but not limited to) Pythagorean theorem, Hyperbolic geometry, Fourier Decomposition, Hypercomplex numbers, Minkowskian Geometry, Quantam Field theory, etc....  Penrose is one of the most respected physicists in his field and he does an excellent job in the book of pointing out when what he is telling you is an unsettled matter and presents the main competing positions for you to consider yourself.  I'm still working my way through it honestly and its hardly a light read, but his insights far exceed the value of any free source of knowledge on the subject that I've found (and I've scoured the net quite a bit).  The topics are simply too interconnected to give a truly adequate explanation and honestly Penrose has done such an excellent job explaining it already so it would be silly to reproduce his works in detail here.

If you're looking for something more towards the layman's side of things I have two other book suggestions for you, PM me if you're interested in those.  Honestly they aren't a bad read to start with for getting introduced to the concepts before learning the math behind them (although they don't cover nearly the ground that Penrose does).

Of course. We talk often. He hasn't led me astray yet.

Yes.

I think Pascal's Wager is a load of crap.  How could you trick an omnipotent being into thinking you believe in him when you're living a "just in case" religious lifestyle?  Any G-d that dumb wouldn't be powerful enough to create/control all of existence, let alone a single planet.

*claps* see, this is my whole point. In actuality, my belief in heaven and hell do not even have any judgement from god, he just simply gives you the rules 10 commandments and other religious texts. If your learnings go against the fundamental truths (there is a god, and lying, stealing, murder and adultery are bad, etc) you won't even be able to comprehend the presence of heaven, you're left with absolutely nothing except the realization that you're wrong. Essentially our time on earth is a tech school to prep us for existing in heaven. Of course there are a ton of things that aren't exactly like heaven, but the teachings are still there for us to let us find a job instead of being out on the street once school is out.

This is also why I do believe in a purgatory of sorts. If believe in something all your life, but then honestly repent beofre your death, you are recognizing that what you did was wrong, but it's still going to take a certain amount of time after you die before you can actually fully understand how and why you were wrong, so you experience the hell of not being able to experience heaven, but it isn't eternal. Those who never repent will be endlessly stuck unable to perceive heaven.

I'd get into more detail if I had time, but I have to go now, so I'll just leave it with that.

two things.
1. If god is perfect why did he create anything? Perfection would free one from need or desire. If you desire something, then it is because you are lacking something and wish to fill that need. If god were perfect he would have no need or desire. And yet he seems to desire a great many things, he even demands a great many things. How can he be perfect when he has so many needs and desires?

2.A question for Grey specifically. How is your man made religion superior to any other man made religion (or faith, since you don't seem to like the word religion)? As far as I can tell, the difference between your approach to the bible and any other religious group is that you're not trying as hard to get people to follow what you believe. You've still done the exact same thing as Church of christ, Jehovah's witness's, mormons, catholics, ect, that is to say you've re-intrepreted the bible to adhere more closely to modern sensibilities. You adhere to biblical relativism, while at the same time stating absolutes, and you are the one determining the absolutes. This part of the bible is true, this part of the bible is false. Which is greatly flawed seeing as how you yourself acknowledge that man can't comprehend God or his ways, but you seem to make the decisions for him.

I mean above, you're just making up doctrines and reasons for god to impose these doctrines. You believe in a purgatory of sorts? Because you need time to understand the wrongs of your ways? Just in case you repented but not soon enough? You're making god in your image, you decide what god would and wouldn't do, the parts of the bible that are and aren't true. How can you take such a relativist view while at the same time saying that every other religion is wrong? You could take the hindu vedas, change them up enough to fit modern sensibilities and poof Jesus is a lie, the vedas are true.