Opus Atrum

Doesn't it seem strange that he/she basically sat around for an infinite amount of time before creating anything? If god is eternal and omnipotent, everything he did should have been immediate. Therefore, he's either not eternal, in which case he must have, by your standard, been created himself, or he does not exist.

If God is omnipotent and created us, he knew from the beginning that his creations would suffer. Therefore, he actually desired that such suffering exists. That is, this god is not worthy of being worshipped.

After my father died, I inherited some money. The bulk of it is handled by an investment firm, which pays out a set amount each month into a trust account. This account is in my mother's name (so I guess you'd call her the "trustee?" My expenses, such as bills and my condo's association fees, are paid out from that account, and some is also transferred into my personal checking account for general day-to-day expenses. What, if any (or all) of that is considered personal income?

Men wrote all the religious texts. If you consider men to be susceptible to error, fallacy, and corruption, scripture must also be subject to the same rules. I mean, none of the texts begin with "my hand, all of a sudden, has begun writing on it's own as if the hand of God were playing it like a puppet."

We hear a lot, primarily from the religious right, that the "sanctity" of marriage must be protected from anything but a one-man/one-woman union. Religion didn't invent marriage, and the only real opposition to gay marriage is based on religion. If you're married or want to someday be married in a religious ceremony, go for it. But, why not allow another couple to wed if they don't share your exact beliefs? Sanctity from a western religious point of view does not equal sanctity from other points of view.

America is a pluralist society in more ways than one. Your idea is not necessarily my idea. There are over 315 million people in the US, and each one of them has a different perception and perspective that the last.

This is a line constantly thrown around in Christendom, but I've found that a lot of people can't even cogently explain exactly what it means. How and why did the death of Jesus of Nazareth cause divine forgiveness of the "sins" of all mankind? And, what does that mean for the millions of human beings that lived and died before he was even born? What about all the people in the world that are never once confronted or told about Jesus? If belief in him as a divine figure is the only chance of salvation, and you've never even heard about him or his story, aren't you just basically screwed?

I just got a condo, and I have an extra bedroom. I want to turn the extra into a wood workshop. Anyone know of a way that I can install some sort of vacuum system to reduce dust and shavings, without altering the condo's infrastructure?

A friend recently dug out some oak fence-posts that were on his property. He says that he believes they may be as much as 150 years old (when they were installed). I'm an artist, mostly doing wood carvings, so he gave me a segment of one of the posts. It appears to be oak, and my friend said that's what he believed it was, but it's much harder than any oak I've dealt with before. I can hardly carve it freehand with knives. My electric Dremel is about all I can use if I don't want to waste hours of vigorous knife-work.

Anyway, to my question. I know that any method of petrification (that I'm aware of) can take tens of thousands of years. But, is it possible that this is, in fact, oak, and that it's begun, in some partial way, to become mineralized? Is there any other reason why it would harden to this extent? I know wood hardens over time as it loses moisture, but the wood apparently sparked when it was being chopped with an axe, and I've so far found no evidence of foreign metal objects (like nails, screws, etc.) Thanks.

A friend recently dug out some oak fence-posts that were on his property. He says that he believes they may be as much as 150 years old (when they were installed). I'm an artist, mostly doing wood carvings, so he gave me a segment of one of the posts. It appears to be oak, and my friend said that's what he believed it was, but it's much harder than any oak I've dealt with before. I can hardly carve it freehand with knives. My electric Dremel is about all I can use if I don't want to waste hours of vigorous knife-work.

Anyway, to my question. I know that any method of petrification (that I'm aware of) takes thousands of years. But, is it possible that this is, in fact, oak, and that it's begun, in some partial way, to become mineralized? Is there any other reason why it would harden to this extent? I know wood can harden over time, given the right conditions, but this seems an extreme case. Thanks.

First, let me stop you from replying that evolution is "just a theory". Not only is that not my point here, but it is a misunderstanding of the term "theory" in a scientific context. Please believe that I'm not trying to be insulting here, I'm just looking for constructive answers.

If your god exists, and evolution does not, why did he go to so much trouble to make it look like natural selection and evolution were real? Why did he plant skeletons and fossil evidence that could be carbon dated and accurately, consistently verified to support such theories?

Now, you may say that "Satan" was responsible for these things. From where, specifically, do you derive that response?

I often hear from the religious, primarily Christians, that "we cannot know God's plan". However, throughout history and into modern times, there are plenty of examples of people who kill others, claiming to be doing so in "God's name". How do they know that's what they're doing? If a god exists, and we can't know his true "plan", are these people just misled or do you think they somehow were informed to do so by that god? Some extremist Muslims and Christians have committed murders out of belief in their doctrines. What is the justification, if any, for such actions?

I know that in Islam and Judaism, pork is said to be prohibited. I was just wondering if the texts of those religions gives any explanation as to why this is so.

I address those who are faithful to a god (or gods). First, let's set some markers to establish a clear inquiry...

1. Is your god omnipotent? In other words, do you believe that your god knows every single thing possible? Do you believe that your god can do anything imaginable? In other words, is that god's power infinite? Is your god perfect?

2. Is your god inherently good, just, and loving?

3. Did your god create the universe, and thus all of us?

4. Does your god wish to be worshiped?

If you answered all of these questions with a yes, please read on. If not, answer and explain why one or more of these 4 criteria do not apply to your faith.

For those who answered yes to all 4...

1. Why did your god create a world where evil and suffering are possible if that god knew such a thing would occur?

2. Why has your god observed this world for so long, yet only revealed his existence via the few old texts that humanity has discovered?

3. Why is humanity imperfect if it's creator is perfect?

4. Why does he require worship?

5. Do some of you believe that faith in your god requires you to force it upon others, and why?

Feel free to answer any or all of these questions. I'd be lying if I said that my motives are completely non-combative, but I really do wish to better understand those of faith. Please regard my questions as a sincere hope to gain that improved understanding.

Let me give some examples...

1. Insured birth control. The Catholic church has been the most vocal on this subject, since the Obama administration submitted that such organizations' insurance should cover birth control. If you don't believe in using contraception, don't use it! But, any person that happens to be employed, directly or indirectly, to the church, may not have those same beliefs. We have a little thing called the separation of church and state in this country. If someone does not believe in contraception, that's their choice. Otherwise, they must have access and it is only right that they be treated as any other US citizen.

2. Gay marriage. For whatever reason, many people in America feel that allowing gay marriage would somehow cheapen heterosexual marriage. Now, I get that many Christians believe marriage is a sacred right, and that somehow it is sullied by single-gender relations. You can have a Christian wedding, you can consider it as sacred as you want, but marriage has been going on a lot longer than Christianity. In fact, up until a few hundred years ago, it usually had little to do with love, but with station and convenience. Blocking gay marriage doesn't affect anyone else's marriage. Don't all people deserve the right to, say, visit their loved ones in the hospital, adopt a child in need, etc?

From the 6th to 13th centuries (about 700 years), most of Europe came to a complete standstill when it came to science and intellectual progress. This is largely thanks to the Christian dogma of the time. Now, as time progressed, intellect and reason became more and more fairly regarded. The problem is, however, that for the preponderance of that period, scientific progress was viewed as heresy. Many people were even executed for pursuing said progress, including many of the greatest minds of that time.

700 years is a fair estimate of the period known as the dark ages. But, let's be extremely conservative and imagine scientific progress was only hindered for a total of 100 years. This indicates that we are a century behind when it comes to technology, medicine, education, etc. The list goes on and on. Imagine what we will accomplish in the next 100 years, and that is what we have lost.

If a faithful Christian could respond, how is this acceptable, and do you agree that religion is responsible? I'm not talking about any god, per se. I'm talking about the way believers of that god behaved during said time period. Additionally, does religion still hold back scientific, technological, and cultural progress?

I hope to hear from both theists and atheists sound and clear points/opinions, and I hope those points/opinions will be accompanied by cited sources. I will get you started with the following link to Wikipedia's page on the so called Dark Ages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_%28historio...

Many Christians in America are vehemently against gay marriage. They claim that marriage is a sacred institution and that same-sex marriage would violate that institution. What I don't understand is why so many Christian organizations (and, to be fair, some other non-Christian organizations) feel they own that "institution". Especially considering that the divorce rate is so high. That doesn't seem very sacred. Marriage isn't a religious event. It's a bond between two people. PEOPLE. To be fair, I'll state that I've never been married and I'm straight, but I do believe in fundamental human rights, that we all are meant to be treated equally, despite race, religion, gender, sexual preference, etc. If two people of the same sex want to be married and enjoy the same rights as any other married couple, how does that infringe upon the rights of any other married couple?

Many Christian believers insist that their beliefs and rules should be subjected upon people of other beliefs (and lack thereof). What makes you believe that your faith is more important than the freedom of your non-believing counterparts?

My father had no will, and he died recently. We've learned that he listed us as beneficiaries of the bulk of his investments. Will I still have to go to probate court concerning those accounts? There's one or two accounts with no beneficiary listed, which I assume would go to my stepmother. I wouldn't contest that in any way. Thanks.

My sister has the gluten allergy/intolerance. It sucks. Sometimes, however, I feel like she's being overly cautious. She uses her own set of cookware even when others have been thoroughly washed. She worries about eating the smallest amounts, like bread crumbs and the like, and even buys gluten free makeup. Are these necessary precautions?

I've been wondering about this for quite some time. TV series tend to give their episodes titles. However, it seems somewhat rare that those titles are actually displayed in any way when the show is aired. Bones is a good example. The episodes have rather clever names like "The Truth in the Lye" or "Aliens in a Spaceship". The only way I know this is that the titles are listed on IMDb. Titles are usually too well thought out to be merely a way for the cast and crew to keep track, so that doesn't seem like a valid reason. One possibility is that the titles are sometimes displayed on cable and satellite guides, or maybe TV schedules in newspapers and the like. But, why wouldn't a show's creators/producers show the title in the actual episode, if only briefly or in the closing credits?