Waste ALL the time!

Just when I thought that religious blogs quit talking about their accounts with random generic atheists, I was knocked right on my ass by this awesome article written by an esteemed member of the blog's staff - he seems to have ingested the least of the Kool Aid, as it's pretty apparent the rest of the staff got to it before he did.

No matter, let's start.

I cannot tell you how many times I have heard atheists characterize Christians as “wasting” their lives. Some mean it as a pejorative, others are quite sincere about it, but in every case there is some kind of concern about Christians reaching the end of their lives and discovering it was all such a waste.

Uh oh. This a problem. People having different opinions about what one should do with his time. Serious stuff indeed. Let's play this from a different angle. Could the generic, caricatured atheists you describe have animosity towards a religion that says quite clearly that the only worthwhile way through life is through their particular brand of God? What happens to the person that's had 150 Pascal's Wagers thrown in his face, and doesn't want to sit through a 151st? I guess it doesn't work that way, right?

By and large atheists of this sort have a desire to draw the Christian away from his or her faith and into a perspective that will not waste this supposedly one and only life. So there are two thoughts I have had with respect to this notion that I wish to share. And instead of speaking broadly for Christians everywhere, which obviously I cannot do, I will speak for myself.

Good job at singling yourself out, but you forgot a crucial point of the conversation, when you single out the opposition and clearly refute statements made, not simply bunching up shit you've heard and dismissing it as "LOL crazy stuff atheists say". For these purposes, let's assume you're talking to me, as I think most religious practice is a colossal waste of time and resources on this planet.

On the one hand, presumably as I am lying on my deathbed, exactly how do I come to the realization that it was all such a waste? Suppose I am lying on a hospital bed, perhaps overrun with cancer and death just a matter of hours away. I have lived my life according to my convictions of Christ’s redeeming grace, committed to a local church whom I have been lovingly devoted to and who has surrounded me in a warm community of support, edification, opportunity, and guidance. I have engaged my passions in learning and understanding, from theology to philosophy to science, through both self-reflection and discourse. I have pursued my appetite for reading, from captivating novels to academic textbooks. I have experienced family and friendship; I have experienced love and being loved, forgiving and being forgiven. I have known the rewards of success and the lessons of failure. I have loved those who hate me and served those who love me. And in every circumstance I have seen God’s providential hand and (even if not consistently) praised God for it all. I have known the God of all creation and have been known by him, through which I have had a scope of vision that transcends the limits of my self, humankind, or the place in history that my existence occupied. I have seen with reverential awe the breathtaking beauty and interconnected realities of God’s handiwork.

So you're saying you've had the most fulfilling life ever, and you're about to die due to some terminal illness (trollgod), and you look at your life thinking there isn't anything wrong with any of it because dammit, YOU FELT GOD.

Yes, that's perfectly fine. If you manage to make it through life not being a complete shithead, then perhaps you've done pretty well for yourself indeed. The fact you believe in a magic deity doesn't mean your entire life is a waste - that would be a claim so ridiculous it would break my crazy crap-o-meter, and that thing's made in Germany.

However, and that's with a capital H, that doesn't mean that you haven't devoted a lot of your life to nonsense. You don't operate in a vacuum, and your actions have consequences, not to mention the ideals that you subscribe to. Having reasoned discourse is fine and all, but at some point you have to realize you belong to an organization that has so much blood on its hands and disenfranchises so many people it should be charged with crimes against humanity.

At what point do you consider turning homosexuals into second-class citizens as part of God's awesome grace? What about supporting an organization that defecates on the Constitution, all the while asks its constituency to fully fund the operation through government subsidies? How about an organization that has COUNTLESS charlatans who continuously drain the pockets of those gullible enough to actually trade their cow in for magic beans? Can you sit there with a straight face and say no time was wasted when the religion you subscribe to has a very vocal majority who believe literally that dinosaurs walked with man, men lived to be 900, snakes could talk, the sun came after light, and someday fire and brimstone will rain down from the sky because Whoa-oh, we've been bad, and God is pissed.

...Nope, I don't understand how joining up with those ideals can be interpreted as a waste of time.

It sucks that you're going to die, and it seems you've been a pretty decent person, but you did have one hell of a ridiculous belief system.

And yet somehow, as I lay here dying, I am supposed to realize this was a waste?

If you recall that your life is all tits and champagne, it's hard to see where exactly your thinking is faulty. "My life is awesome" and "I believe in nonsense" don't necessarily have any bearing on each other.

Exactly what might I have otherwise had or done? If I had not these Christ-centered convictions, would I have had friendships? But I had these. Would I have been able to enjoy great learning? Would I have had a rewarding career in a field I love? Would I have explored the halls of knowledge or the wonders of the cosmos? But I had these, too. Would I have loved and helped my fellow man? Would I have gained an understanding and appreciation for the views of others that differ from mine? But I have had and done all this—and much more. Given the sort of people that this expressed concern comes from, perhaps the waste they speak of is a life that was without an abiding wonder and intellectual curiosity about the natural world around us which we have explored and sought to understand through a web of scientific disciplines. But as someone with a profound appreciation and respect for such things, having consumed countless hours learning about cosmological and biological discoveries, my life was not lived without scientific wonder and curiosity. I could go on but at the end of the day I must confess that it escapes me just how I should realize my life was wasted.

I can play the what-if game too!

If I hadn't eaten that Taco Bell, would I have had to rush to the bathroom? If I had wheels, would I be a wagon?

You seem like you've had a very fulfilling life, and I applaud you for that. Hope you reach the stars with that can-do attitude. But excuse me if I point out that presupposing the existence of a magical being that has so many character flaws he would be written out of the first season of a Chilean soap opera is a waste of time. Would you have shared the same bonds and had the same interactions with your fellow Christians if you hadn't been you?

That question is simply stupid. It's like asking what would steak be like if it was a shoelace. Again you're making a caricature of the atheists you've spoken to, and created arguments that aren't actually there. No one's saying your entire life is a waste - just the part that you devote to worshiping and talking to your imaginary friend to make things better in your life magically. Just because you made friends in his fan club doesn't make the action of talking to him any less absurd.

On the other hand, what is it about lying at death’s door that is supposed to clue me in to it all being a waste? Granting the atheist his or her view that this life is the only one I have, that when I die there is nothing left but non-existence as my body decomposes in the ground, how am I supposed to realize this was all a waste? While I am yet alive but dying, there is nothing that would indicate that this life was the only one I had; in other words, I have not crossed the threshold of death yet so there is not anything that indicates those atheists were right. The irony which seems lost on them, however, is that even if they are right I will never know it—because as a dead and decomposing corpse I would not realize anything. On the atheist’s view, a corpse does not engage in acts of cognition.

You don't realize anything after you die - you answered your own question. The realization comes before you die, hence the entire conversation - which hopefully happens between two living individuals.

And by the way, there is NOTHING indicating that this life is the only one you have? The fact that all brain function ceases (the thing in your head that makes you, you) isn't a good indicator that hey, maybe this is it?

...Or perhaps you think that because you haven't yet died, the chances of there being and afterlife and not are 50/50?

The only thing ironic thing here is you talking about you being too dead to care to realize anything, and faulting atheists for trying to point that out to you before you actually die, all the while believing that your consciousness (a product of your physical body) will get transported to a place where you can spend ALL the time with the imaginary friend you've been talking to this whole time.

See guys, told you he was real!

Let's waste some more time and brain cells.

Indeed, as I lay there dying I would not realize it was all a waste, for by the grace of God I did everything I desired to do. When you live the life that you want to, according to the values and passions you have, how is that a waste? Perhaps the things I value and desire to do is uninteresting or tedious to you, but what has that to do with me? For example, if I love to study God’s word and you do not, just how is that a waste for me?

Different people have different opinions on what is worthwhile in life. In my opinion, listening to country music is a waste of time. It's not necessarily a waste from your perspective, but I can certainly let you know what I think on the subject, and if you so desire, you can tell me to kindly fuck off and leave you to your Garth Brooks. I'm really not sure who exactly this is aimed towards.

You also write as if you practice your religion in a vacuum, and that your religion is completely benign. If your beliefs led to demonstrable acts of malice, prejudice and persecution, would you consider that worthy of your time, or would you brush it off and don the rose colored glasses you've been wearing for this entire conversation in regards to your life?

If the atheist is right, if this life is the one and only life I have and I lived it according to what I value and desire to do, after which nothing but black non-existence awaits me, then my life was neither wasted nor could I realize anything about it. That’s the sheer irony of all this. About the only thing the atheist could say is that I did not live the one and only life I have according to that atheist’s values and desires—but so what? If I did that, then I would be wasting my life.

Nothing like a fucking Pascal's Wager to round out the day.

You're essentially saying if I believed in nonsense, then died, I didn't waste any time because I BELIEVED it, and couldn't spend my time doing anything else - perhaps something more rooted to reality. Nothing is ever a waste of time and resources if it makes you happy and coincides with your values, right?

Consider this example:

Tim lived in the city and had an amazing intellect and loved to solve problems. He had a knack for working under pressure and came up with creative solutions for complex scenarios. Tim also spoke to his pet rock 5 times a day and spent most of his time and money writing love notes to it and constructing costumes for plays he held weekly for himself and his rock.

To most people, this would be ridiculous and a waste of time and resources, especially for a person of natural talent. This is how I view religion - you keep talking to that pet rock and putting on plays, all the while trying to convince everyone else you're not crazy because you hear the rock talking back.

Although I appreciate the concern that such atheists have, I do have to point out the incoherence of it. Given their view, and especially their disdain for people shoving values down their throats that are not theirs, it quite literally makes no sense for them to suggest that I am wasting my life in any way. Thus their concern is misplaced and unintelligible at any rate. If you want to know whether or not Christians are wasting their lives, then ask them if they are living it according to their values and passions.

And do try being a little more self-consistent; if you are right, then my corpse would be incapable of realizing it.

So one who doesn't subscribe to your belief system cannot have an opinion that differs from yours because you live life by YOUR VALUES DAMMIT. Well have you considered that people aren't coming from your values, but another set that may or may not be more suitable for an accurate interpretation of reality? Since you promote discussion and discourse, what about discussing the reasons behind someone calling an action a waste of time, rather than brushing off the argument as "CORPSES DONT THINK, STUPID"?

And where are you getting the notion that a life can't be a waste simply because someone lived life the way they wanted?


I hope there isn't a part 2. Sequels usually aren't as good as the first, and there isn't much to go on for a next round. Should I get a bunch of atheist friends to now congratulate me while I delete all the comments that I don't like?

Refuting tired anti-gay marriage arguments....yet again.

As a self-proclaimed glutton for punishment, I periodically read up on current issues in the religious blogosphere. A particular favorite of mine would have to be The Aristophrenium- a Christian apologetics site in which one-sided arguments are beaten to death with laughable reasoning.

The latest issue to get the "dead horse" treatment is gay marriage. Not being content with one radically derailed blogpost, the staff at the Aristophrenium have taken it upon themselves to write about it again and again. Personally, I figured they'd be too busy arguing whether the talking snake in Genesis was actually real or not to write another article, but lo and behold, I was wrong.

A lovingly titled Marriage: more than "equality of love" was posted by Mathew. I'll give you a few minutes to read it over before I start tearing into this shit sandwich of an argument.


...


Ready?



Alright, let's begin.

In the advertisement, we are introduced to the twin brothers, David and Paul. David is married, Paul is not. The brothers relate to the audience how the two of them used to share and do so much with each other during their growing up. But now, or so we’re told, they cannot share in the experience of marriage. See, Paul is gay and speaks fondly of his homosexual partner whom he can’t legally marry.

Cue the emotional rhetoric.

David: “So why are we different now? I can get married, and Paul can’t. Who you love should have nothing to do with that.”

Paul: “Yeah. It shouldn’t matter.”

Ignoring the fact that Paul can indeed marry with the same restrictions as what his brother David can (sounds equal to me!), do you see the presumption that’s made?

The argument is: Paul and David can marry with the same restrictions, therefore they are equal. While on its face that may seem like a coherent line of reasoning, thinking about it for more than 5 seconds will yield a drastically different answer.

Replace the word "gay" or "homosexual" with "black", and you'll have the basis for marriage restriction in America 150 years ago. Under Mathew's reasoning, these restrictions would qualify as "equal rights".
*********************************************************************************************

Marriage is not, as the vast majority of gay “marriage” advocates often spout, a social construct or even a religious institution. Marriage, in all its forms and in all known cultures across the world and throughout history, predates both governmental and religious regulation and has always been about the uniting of the sexes⁴. That being the case, the best that governments and religious institutions can do is describe, or recognize, natural marriage, but they are never capable of prescribing what marriage is.

So what exactly is natural marriage, and how is it different than, say, procreation and child rearing? And why is this at all important in a legal matter, which necessarily has to do with governmental institutions? It seems Mathew's going a bit off topic here and putting forth a notion he hasn't explained or defined in any context. The link he gave to cite the "uniting of the sexes" phrase was a quote from an anti-gay book entitled "Marriage on Trial", in which the author vaguely claims that marriage has always been between a man and a woman, anywhere in the world. What he fails to note is the stigma surrounding homosexual union and its effect on that society, as well at what relevance ancient tradition has to do with the issue at hand.

Also, if a governing institution amends its policies on who can legally marry who, how is that NOT prescribing what marriage is?
*********************************************************************************************

Marriage is public. It is public because marriage impacts how society is shaped and how society views marriage impacts the health and prosperity of that society. In the words of promiment natural marriage proponent Dr Jennifer Roback Morse, “The essential public purpose of marriage is to associate mothers and fathers to their children and to one another.”⁶ Marriages are the seedbed for families and it is the family unit that utlimately builds our societies. That’s the core obligation of marriage: parental responsibility to all children resulting from the union.

So taking that argument to its logical conclusion, heterosexual couples who can't, or don't wish to produce offspring shouldn't be allowed to marry. Right?
*********************************************************************************************

Love in marriage is important, but it is at best a property that individuals bring into or cultivate within the marital union, not a property only obtained by marriage. Therefore, on the viewpoint of social conservatives like myself, marriage has a critical societal function of which the love between the spouses in marital union only serves. While Paul may sincerely love his same-sex partner, their romantic love cannot contribute in the same manner to society as the romantic love of a man and woman can. Period. But not being able to legally marry does not prevent Paul and his partner from continuing to love each other.

So because Paul can't contribute in the same way to society (biological children, I'm assuming) as a heterosexual couple can, same-sex marriage should be illegal. Got it.

A few questions to that:

1. What about those couples who are infertile?
2. What about those couples who are fertile, but don't want children?
3. If the couples in (1) and (2) get legal incentives and rights for simply being together in a lifelong and legally binding commitment, why shouldn't Paul and his consenting adult partner?
*********************************************************************************************

So family is the real purpose of marriage. While it is now common place to have other types of family variations (such as single-parent families, step-parent families, biological co-habitating parent familes, etc.) studies show that children from families where their biological parents are married perform better on just about every measurable indicator⁷.

That doesn't make any sense, and it's obvious that Mathew hasn't read the material he cited. Let me elaborate:

While it is true that being married with biological parents does show notable improvement in the indicators of the study (school performance, behavior problems, emotional problems, early pregnancy, difficulty finding employment), children of same sex couples were no better or worse off than children of divorced heterosexual couples.

If Mathew is deriving his argument straight from indicators of a child's well-being, anything less than the optimal situation should be illegal. So out goes divorce, out goes single family households, and out go economically poor households, because they all score lower than than those households with two biological parents.

In addition, here is what it states in its conclusion:

This being said, most children not living with married, biological parents grow up without serious problems. In individual situations, marriage may or may not make children better off, depending on whether the marriage is “healthy” and stable. Marriage may also be a proxy for other parental characteristics that are associated with relationship stability and positive child outcomes. The legal basis and public support involved in the institution of marriage help to create the most likely conditions for the development of factors that children need most to thrive—consistent, stable, loving attention from two parents who cooperate and who have sufficient resources and support from two extended families, two sets of friends, and society. Marriage is not a guarantee of these conditions, however, and these conditions exist in other family circumstances, but they are less likely to.

What happened, Mathew? Did you forget to read the entire article before you made the decision that it agreed with your rant and cited it anyway?

The fact is, stigmas and views of marriage are changing. In a survey in which married couples were asked "What Makes Marriage Work?", children came 8th, after good sex, sharing chores, adequate income, and a nice house - and only 41 percent of those respondents mentioned children at all, a 24 percent decrease since 1990.
*********************************************************************************************

A marriage license is not a license to love; if anything, it is a license of parental obligation. And it’s this obligation that the gay “marriage” lobby constantly shy away from.

Swing and a miss!

A marriage license is a document issued by the state allowing a couple to marry. That's it. It's not inherently about family, child rearing ,or any other stretch you want to attempt to make homosexuals the bad guys. Married couples don't have to have kids - in fact, a growing percentage don't want to - so what's the issue with having a same-sex couple marry?
*********************************************************************************************

Like it or not, there is a very natural and objective difference between the romantic love of heterosexual couples and the romantic love of homosexual couples: one sexual act lends itself towards procreation; the other cannot. One couple combines complementary genders (also important for the healthy development of children⁸); the other comprises members of the same gender (which intentionally deprives any children involved of at least one of the biological parents). To argue that the heterosexual and homosexual couple are the same really borders on the preposterous and ignores sound scientific data.

First off, no one's saying they're the same in every aspect. There are differences between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples - real ones, like social stigmas and pressures. These have to be taken into account. Since procreation isn't necessary for marriage or vice versa (as evidenced by my previous arguments and sources), a truly objective view would be to regard marriage itself as a legally binding institution between two consenting adults.
*********************************************************************************************

Further, if the conservative position on marriage is that it is fundamentally a public institution wherein the highest social obligation is that it bonds fathers and mothers to their children and to each other, gay “marriage” advocates have done little – if not next to nothing – to allay these concerns.

So what? If someone has a view that isn't based on sound reasoning, and not open for change via rational arguments, then who cares what they think? Is it the "gay marriage advocate's" fault that the conservative's views are in contrast with demonstrable reality? At what point does accountability come through in evaluating one's position on a particular issue?
*********************************************************************************************

Australian Marriage Equality‘s advertisement is testament to that fact. What’s more, if the gay “marriage” lobby truly desire to alter the definition of marriage, then the burden of proof rests squarely on their shoulders to demonstrate how such a redefinition will not harm society but benefit it.

That's all?

I can name 5 ways off the top of my head right now, and I'm not even part of the "gay marriage lobby".

1. State revenue will increase (legal ceremonies, administrative costs)
   
2. Local revenue will increase (personal and religious ceremonies, receptions, etc.)
3. Increase the number of children adopted.
   
4. Encourages individuals to give up high-risk sexual lifestyles
5. Introduces financial incentives for lifelong commitment between partners, strengthening the economy.

Also, if gay marriage becomes legal, it isn't actually hurting anyone. Straight people will be allowed to marry just as they did for hundreds of years - nothing changes on that end.
*********************************************************************************************

Further, pronouncing defenders of natural marriage as religious bigots and / or homophobes is not only intellectually dishonest but incredibly disengenuous and a veiled attempt of silencing debate. The claim that marriage ought only consider whom you love is equally unfounded and is no more than the West’s skewed romanticization of the marital institution.

I wouldn't go so far as to call you a bigot, but you are definitely misguided and you let confirmation bias lead you. You have tunnel vision regarding this issue, and it seems like you won't see the other side of the coin, no matter how clearly it's shown to you. To treat gays as a threat of your way of life is a bit laughable, but I can see how it can get you out of your comfort zone.

By the way, a tagline doesn't have to outline the entire issue. Has it ever occurred to you that what Australia Marriage Equality was hoping to do was show one facet of the issue, and try to sway the opinions of those that perhaps haven't thought of it in such a light? There are plenty of proponents that don't use emotions of love as an argument, so I'm not sure what you're arguing.
*********************************************************************************************

If, as a group, as a whole and by nature, the natural marital union create families, it is in society’s best interests to protect, promote and strengthen the age-old institution of man-woman marriage. And if children do best in households where their biological parents are married to each other, it therefore stands to reason that marriage should hold a unique value in society.

I just explained to you that procreation isn't necessary for a fruitful marriage, and just because children do best in one household doesn't mean you should outlaw all other kinds of households right off the bat, especially if children aren't a primary factor in that household.
*********************************************************************************************

Marriage – all things being equal – is a child-centered institution while, in contrast, the concept of gay “marriage” would be an adult-centered institution by necessity.

Marriage is not a child-centered institution. Raising children is a child-centered institution. You can't use the terms interchangeably, since one doesn't necessitate the other. Also, why would an adult-centered institution necessarily be a bad thing? By definition, a childless marriage would be an adult-centered institution, and last I checked, those were fully legal.
*********************************************************************************************

It continues to mystify me that there are segments within our society that would seek to redefine marriage which, as it stands, provides the best environment for the rearing of the next generation. Natural marriage, therefore, is healthy for all members of society. Whether you are gay or straight, it is in the individual’s best interests (and their social duty as members of society) not to define marriage to be anything other than the life-long, sexually-exclusive union of one man and one woman.

You still haven't defined what "natural marriage" is. How is one married by nature, and since homosexuality happens in nature, why is this not applicable to same-sex couples?

So after all this, I fail to see where your arguments can stand. I urge you to reply to my questions and comments and tell me where my line of reasoning is faulty, or reconsider your position. I have the sneaking suspicion, perhaps, that you will just ignore all that was said and regurgitate your arguments sometime in the near future when you read an article that doesn't fall in line with your doctrine.

Recognize futility, exercise humility.

Greetings, friends.

I'd like to start this off by posing a simple, yet strikingly uncommon question to those reading:

"What goals and ideals are important for progression of the human race?"

As a preface, I'll let you know that I don't intend to answer this question, as there can be countless explanations as to what, if anything is most important to the human condition in general. I will, however, add what I think to be an important contribution in determining what methodology to use in answering questions such as the one I've mentioned.

Let's start off with a scenario.

Civilization A consists of people that employ ideals that are based on emotion. They are led mainly by superstition, persuaded by authority and are heavily rooted in tradition. Their main goal is to retain their way of life and live with the knowledge that all life's questions have already been answered by an ultimate source.

Civilization B consists of people that employ ideals that are based on demonstrable results, and empirical evidence. They are led mainly by logic, the scientific method, and a genuine thirst for knowledge. Although they are prone to errors frequently,they learn from their mistakes, as their main goal is to learn as much about their surroundings as possible, and accept that not all in the universe is known, or perhaps even knowable, but that should not impede one from trying. In fact, it only serves to strengthen curiosity.


Let's examine this a bit further:

In our hypothetical situation, Civ. A yearns to maintain the status quo, while Civ. B strives to learn more than previous generations, standing on the shoulders of giants in order to do so. Why is this an important distinction, and what does it have to do with employing ideals that help progress the human race?

Quite simply, if you think you have all the answers, you stop searching. This is intellectual stagnation. If you honestly believe that there is nothing more to be learned about the universe, no intellectual progression can be made. The very notion of adopting superstitious and unverifiable belief is futile, because by definition, you'd have no way of actually backing it up or testing it.

Applying these scenarios to the real world, we realize that humans are a mixed bunch. There are extremes on either side of the spectrum, but most fall in a bell curve consisting of a mixture between Civ. A and Civ. B. It's a breath of fresh air that most people in industrialized countries don't resort to incantations as a first resort to life threatening situations, but it's also a bit unsettling to see superstition promoted with fervor, with dissenting opinions labeled as disrespectful.

It is important that we recognize these traits in ourselves and have the ability to analyze our beliefs in such a way that they are readily demonstrable in reality. Testing the only way to distinguish fact from fiction consistently, and it is equally important to know that no belief, idea, or claim is above question. The human brain thrives on stimulation - so much so that it will hallucinate in times of sensory depravation. It's a machine that needs a constant supply of fuel to run optimally. If we as a society don't harness the resources and drive to answer the interesting and mystifying questions in the universe, we are quite literally wasting the most important aspect of our physical evolution.

One of the more interesting facts about our quest for knowledge via the scientific method is the more we find out about the universe, the less we realize we know. Using Carl Sagan's terminology, we are an inconceivably small part of the universe, floating around on a pale blue dot, in a system of other dots, around a star that is one of hundreds of billions, in a galaxy of hundreds of billions in the universe. To make claims of ultimate knowledge on such a grand scale when there is so much to be learned is not only futile, but arrogant.

Learning our place in the universe can be ultimately humbling, as we are in a time where we can observe other planets from afar, measure the distance between stars, and ask questions, but aren't in a position to physically travel there in any reaosnable time frame. We are in a period where we recognize how large our environment is, but are powerless as of yet to do anything about exploring that environment.

The religious and superstitious people of the world claim to answer to a higher power, and I can appreciate that. I honestly think that we as a species must hold some connection to something larger than ourselves to keep our motivation in life to a maximum. What I propose, however, is that we replace the unverifiable with the real. We can toss the magical for something that is awe-inspiring and demonstrable. Those searching for answers need not turn to religious doctrine, they simply need to adopt the mindset that we don't know all the answers yet, but we should work to one day have them. The sooner we realize that we are a fragile species and abandon the wishful thinking and fears associated with religious claims of the afterlife, we can break barriers between cultures and share a common bond and goal, and yes, it is ironic that it is only after we recognize how alone we are in our environment can we unify.

We must question the status quo and analyze where benefits can be established. And most importantly, we must observe reality on its terms, and be able to change our thoughts and theories when new evidence is presented. This way, not only will the potential of society not be wasted to trivial or mundane tasks, but people will have the methods in place to learn from their mistakes and take responsibility for their thoughts and actions.