I am sorry for your loss, and I don't think anyone's words can make the pain less. Occupying the mind with other life related chores helps, as a patch on a scar.

I am an absolute materialist, nothing metaphysical concerns me, never did. Grieving for those that have passed is very culturally determined though. Some cultures, not necessarily religious beliefs, deal with death and perceive it in a very different way than most European Judeo-christians. Some natives of the Americas perceive it as liberation...

Why so much pain and agony through life? I attribute most of it in the various systems of inequality as the prime cause. Capitalism, the state, organized violence (the state), material and power inequality. Very few believe or are willing to struggle for equality, they accept the crap we have been subjected to as "human nature". If it is so human why do we feel so uncomfortable?

Motivation is the struggle for equality (all forms of it), and to revert the damage done to earth while we can still evade extinction. Capitalism is accelerating our path to extinction. If we see life as the life of humanity, extinction is the only real death.

Get up soldier, we have a war to fight.
No god no master

In other words, the correct morality will lead to economic equality as well, but focusing on equality and putting morality secondary will lead to us getting neither.

What most call economic equality I call material equality, but it is only half of the equality, or maybe the lesser half. True equality is political equality, where everyone has an equal say in the decision making process about anything we have in common. Material equality can only be part of what equals decide on. So this equality really describes the only morality we need, any moral rules above this equality would be some set of moral rules imposed and enforced from above the equals.

Those who have tried to argue that political equality and economic equality as separate, different, independent, they have failed miserably, so they would rather not discuss it than have to explain their authoritarian infatuation with economic equality.
Those that have tried to deny modern and archaic anthropological findings, of communities/tribes/nations of people who practiced true equality for centuries, in a very stable social environment, are the same who pretend it is an impossible ideal, and that humans are incapable of surviving without a shepherd.

time

Can we conceive time without mater and energy? If we can conceive time being infinite for the future why can't we consider time being equally infinite in the past? Just as logic, if there was such a thing as god, logic/time must have preceded this entity. So mathematics pre-existed, we are just discovering it slowly.

I can't understand consciousness beyond life. All life forms "we know about" are included in this very thin film in the surface of the earth, which includes the sea, which is the overwhelming majority of life on earth. Beyond the bottom of the sea and a few kilometers above the surface we have found no evidence of any other life. Statistically there has to be much more scattered around the universe. If we were to assume that life on earth, all forms, ended, what form of consciousness can there be?

An atheist is someone who has a specific thesis on the lack of existence of god, and anything metaphysical. An atheist is concerned about the existence of god. A materialist can't be bothered with such idealism, or the question of the existence of any form of metaphysical existence. A materialist will not even respond to anything along those lines as it is not really a question. How can you make a question out of terms that don't exist?

Then there is science, which couldn't possibly exist without materialist thought. Science solely belongs to materialism, as a process and as methodology. The fact that there were scientists that entertained metaphysical thought, "beyond their work", doesn't mean that there can be science and metaphysics together.

But the big one is, society. Metaphysical thought blurs, destructs, and confuses the masses about their material conditions. It invents false alliances with enemies, it diverts the goal of equality to an equality of spirits, and maintains the order of inequality, exploitation, and oppression which is exclusively material.

No wonder that all religions, all states, all emperors and dictators (with the most perverse of them all, Alexander), all regimes, have been in war against all forms of materialist thought since its inception (as we know it Heraclitos' thought, father of the dialectic) 25-2600 years ago. Why, because it endangers the status quo of authoritarian maintenance of inequality. There was a brief pause of this war in ancient Athens, where theist agents (aristocratic supporters) like Plato and his buddies tried to undermine and overthrow the government in protection of materialism. Aristocracy was the earliest form of democracy's enemy.

Metaphysical thought can only be individual. The false collective of common metaphysical thought organized under the dictatorship of "middle men"/clergy, still maintains the isolated individual belief on the metaphysical. Collectively, we can only organize and communicate through material speech (verbal or written), leaving all metaphysics out. Otherwise we can not really have a rational conversation and nothing affecting material conditions can be of metaphysical nature. It is pointless to have an "irrational conversation" as two opposing views can both be correct in the mindset of metaphysical thought. Hence no agreement, therefore no action. Meanwhile those that rule, economically and politically, can manage to leave all metaphysics out, organize and communicate in a very material basis amongst themselves, and be very effective.

So, any effort to avert discussion from real, material, problems to metaphysics, is a waste of time and an obstacle to the drive for equality, justice, peace, environmental/ecological stability. Metaphysics is a tool of the enemy of humanity, for tens of thousands of years, and it is just the past 2 millenniums we are beginning to see a glimpse of the light, through science. The enemy is always a very small group of people whose decisions are enforced through extreme mechanisms of violence, blackmail against survival, and mind manipulation (metaphysics).

If Einstein wasn't a materialist then who was? Despite of the social pressures to under-write certain belief systems, Einstein briefly made statements on things that were beyond his work, he left no room for metaphysics, and he left no room for the justification of capitalism. But, would the theory of relativity be of lesser importance or validity if he had said he was a Jew, or a Buddhist? It certainly can't be refuted in metaphysical terms. He also liked to joke more than the average physicist does. He said he believed that only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and that he wasn't that sure of the infinity of the universe.

There is not much here for me to continue. It is exactly the reason someone allows metaphysical speculation to take place in a "rational" discussion that the perception of the current state of life on earth is universal and natural. You are denying key historical processes that allowed things to be this way. You are also projecting relations of predators and dominated animals in nature/jungle to be normal "within the same specie", cannibalism that is, and you make the philosophical leap to justify the dominant predator as a "positive" and the victims of cannibals as "deficient".

Things like cannibalism, common in Europe (where people massively killed for the sake of killing) were inconceivable in some new worlds, in the case of Australia/NZ only a couple of centuries ago. People lived harmoniously, respecting each other's presence/community/territory, without engaging in genocide to grab land and exploit slaves to extract wealth. They did live like this as long as we can find traces of human presence, then the W.Europeans landed and capitalism developed. This is tiny instant of time of life on earth, and during this moment people were too confused my metaphysics to avert this phenomenon.

You can't look at history as a picture of current conditions, when I say current I mean 500-1000-2000 years. Just the dog has been domesticated by humans 10k years, during a very unfortunate turn of human development. What should be puzzling is all scientific findings that show that there can't be a 22nd century for humanity, it ends in the 21st. There is growing dispute that there is still a way to avert this or slow it down.

> Masses/majorities of people unintentionaly desire certain people to be in charge

This sounds like a sexual fetish. "Unintentional desire". A psychoanalyst may have a party dealing with this one. I am not trying to play with words, I admit I have an extreme aversion with the word desire when discussing politics/philosophy. Some people bless this word as holly, "human desire", and that it has to be respected. Respected by an individual for the next? Or respected collectively? There is a difference, a child molester and an animal molester may respect each other's "desires" and accept them. Collectively we tend to see them as abusive and will not tolerate them. Unintentional sounds even more scary when it comes to desire. The desire deep inside the psyche of the individual is something we tend to either not see or be able to do anything about. The desire that materializes has direct ramifications to either people, animals, or the environment around those materializing desires. This becomes a material problem when it materializes. The desire to have, control, dictated, occupy, more than your fair share, is something that CAN be collectively harnessed. Otherwise some Bezos can really swallow the entire earth up.

> im not sure the cannibalism metaphor could encapsulate what that phenomenon is

I don't think of it as phenomenon, it is chaotic rule of individualism. This system breeds competition on humans for survival. Each and every one has to individually survive, which is contrary to human tradition. Humans survived as communities in the past, in almost all cultures and corners of the earth. It is the only known and commonly acceptable part of human nature we know. We are not like panthers or wildcats. We survive in groups as groups. Capitalism is striving to alter this very nature of humans, and although it projects massive urban societies, it attempts to break down any connection and unity among people. One of the ways it achieves this is to promote false sense of unity under false characteristics, religion, ethnicity, gender, race, sexual orientation, sports, ... and by doing this it eliminates class barriers. Meanwhile, to survive within this mass chaotic society you must compete with your peers, for salary, educational achievement, position within a bureaucracy (even though it may be industrial technical work, all work has hierarchies/bureaucracies), Your access to shelter and food, medical care, education, is a commodity that is not equally shared, but you have to compete for it.

Hence cannibalism, class cannibalism that is. You don't fight with your boss as much as you are with your co-worker. You are at each other's throat about getting a promotion. Not all workers together get a promotion. Instead of questioning the promoter, you question those who are promoted instead of you. The sliest fallacy is that if we all work harder and smarter, and produce more and more, we will "all" benefit and be "advanced". So the rats keep spinning the wheels faster and faster wanting to be the ONLY rat that gets the cheese.

> I think there has always been war .... have existed in this world.

I am sorry, I can't give a brief reference to the entire field of anthropology, but this is very contrary to scientific findings and I will not dispute them to agree with your perception on human history. Some may even argue that there are very very few communities of native tribes hidden in some jungle corners where valuable resources haven't been identified, and are still contradicting what you are saying. Chief Seattle once said that earth owns us, we can not own earth. This is black/white difference between the philosophy of those people and the European invaders/rapists/murderers. The "civil"ized being invaded by the "uncivil"ized. The uncivilized always win this war.

The zapatistas since day 1 (1-1-1994) have said we want everything for everyone, nothing for ourselves.

> I bet people generally were ........ This has always had .........

We must have read very different books on history and human development. Because our understandings are very very contradictory. Based on two very different datasets with contradictory data, how can we discuss much?

> .... but when people are unwilling to discuss, worse happens .....

Here is some first solid ground we can agree on. So, let us talk about discussion in specific. Equals can discuss things, and keep discussing things till they come to a mutual understanding and possibly an agreement. Let's take an example, which I love and use often. Let's say our community has a problem with the septic system, and we need to do something about it, and the reasons why we should are very convincing to everyone. How do we go about fixing it? There are many proposals, some conflicting with each other, some laughed at, some perceived as unattainable, ... and the discussion continues till we examine all of them, realize why even a good proposal can and must be rejected, and how sometimes even a poor proposal, based on other arguments, may be the best course of action. Now step back, and think how in your community the septic system that is broken gets fixed. Why isn't there discussion, some neighbors may have better proposals, cheaper, easier, faster, more durable, more sanitary, .... more beneficial. Who stops this discussion from taking place, and even if it did among neighbors, who decides and who fixes it, and who pays for it is none of their business. So it takes an AUTHORITY to END a discsussion, to disregard a discussion or its agreements.

Now imagine a community, having an urgent meeting to discuss about the existence of god, and whether she is good or evil. I simply would rather discuss the septic system and choose to skip this meeting and the almighty goddess.

Ending a discussion is the worst form of violence, it is actually THE ONLY REASON for violence. If discussion was to go on there would be no violence. Violence, organized violence, such as RIOT POLICE, is a tool by authorities to END A DISCUSSION, a conversation, a debate. You shut the fuck up, I DECIDE, and you pay for what I decide is best for you. If you don't like it I will beat you up and you can vote for one of my other friends, bribed by the same sewage contractor.

> ... So we can agree to disagree there ...

This is a cliche that is empty of meaning. This is actually the border between the rational and irrational conversation. If you tell me that matter and even a life form made of matter, can travel 1.2 times the speed of light, and I show you with equations that this is not possible, it is absolutely illogical, there is not much to agree to disagree about. Alternatively we can admit that my arguments are not enough to convince you, and yours are not enough to convince me, and we just give up mutually understanding that we are incapable of defending two hypotheses adequately. This is very different than saying that two contradicting arguments can both be correct. If neither one of us is good at theoretical physics and you believe in time travel and I don't, we may not be able to convince each other who is correct. So we agree not to disagree, but that we are both ignorant on the subject we are debating about.

> I tend to think human nature ,....

Theists, all along history, have used this term as a crotch to escape on the necessities of belief of a higher force, the supernatural, and to portray humans as deficient to this other being that only "they" know and understand better, hence it is natural for them to be the middle men between this higher form of life and this deficient one of humans. Except for humans being nomadic animals, to be able to transmit knowledge from one generation to the next, to be able to make more ingenious tools, we know nothing more about such a thing as human nature. We have not been convinced that we are the only animal that communicates or has memory, or any of it. We are still speculating about known life forms. We study and try to learn. Whales for sure communicate about complex matters, as their communication seems complex. Beavers make dams during the right season for the benefit of the next season, and ants make homes for thousands of lives underground, that never flood and destroy their colonies. There is not a spec of evidence that some being not made of matter and energy ever existed and created anything or affected anything.. Hence it can't be a scientific object. Fungi on the other hand may be as close as a life form to what we call god.

I believe that life resources on the planet earth are finite, they can change forms, they can become less beneficial to life forms, but they are finite, not infinite.

Equality as in equal respect for each other, equality as a tendency to share rather than prohibiting access to resources, equality in participating in discussion and decision about what we have in common, this I believe is order and it is humanly achievable. Chaos and inequality is disorder, it is a source of conflict, violence, competition, and eventually loss of life of those defeated. If we were to say that chaos and inequality is "natural" then let us see if it is possible for humans to attain equality if they were to pursue it.

> Do human extinction is scientifically inevitable before the 22nd century. That is perplexing/puzzling indeed.

There is growing evidence and modeling on biological diversity that shows that there is a threshold where any ecosystem when reaching a certain low level of diversity, collapses and then no life is possible. Unfortunately we can only estimate diversity and it changes daily. There is clear evidence that there are always new species materializing, evolving, and species vanishing, becoming extinct. There is growing evidence that we have entered an era where the new species are a fraction of the extinct species. There is all kinds of evidence that industrialization, mining, deforestation, etc. have been accelerating this phenomenon in an alarming rate.

The very definition of a forest is long term stability of enormous biological diversity, the more and the longer this stability exists the more enduring the forest and the more abundant the life. We have been practicing quite the opposite for way too long. We have gone to an all out war against ALL other life forms, we want to dominate and exploit. Permaculture as a concept is about the only hope we may have had, but it is so contradictory to the way of life we have it will only become relevant and understandable among the very last few humans that will remain, and it may then be too late to practice. Science --> technology --> practice/industrial production, has contributed 0 to what we can eat, to what we need to eat, or how we can survive as a whole. You take those arrows away, and there is plenty of science that leads to 0 technology and practice, because it contradicts industrial development. It is systematically negated as irrelevant because money can not be made with it.

So next time you spray some bugs, take an antibiotic, a fungicide, wash your kitchen, your bathroom, your clothes, your body, and flush it all out, think about being a mass murderer. The next time you spray your yard, take "weeds" out, and plant dutch GMOs because they make pretty colors and smell nice, trim your bushes, and gather leaves and throw them as trash, think about diversity. The only reason clean drinkable water runs in streams is because thousands of lives live by taking substances out of the water while it is running down from the forest to the valley. Without them, water wouldn't be drinkable. EVERYTHING we eat, except for industrial chemicals like medicine, is organic forms, life forms. We don't eat anything that wasn't some form of life. We continuously for more than 10k years been choosing to eat a smaller and smaller variety.

We are so fucked it is indescribable.

We are so stupid it is immeasurable.

We know so much about what we do being so wrong that we must be mentally retarded to continue, and we do.

Since no one has presented the traditional Biblical view, I'll try to do so. Of course there are plenty of books on the subject that do a much better job at explaining it than I can, but perhaps I can at least explain what I believe and why.

Wat-now wroteSo what views do you cherish about how the universe began?

One of the simplest forms of life, a single celled bacteria, is incredibly complex. It has a flagellum that can spin at 100,000 rpms, can instantly stop or reverse rotation, and does not overheat from friction. So far, we are unable to make anything like it--not even close. The cell has many "machines" of similar complexity, all of which have parts that are useless by themselves. The cell can find its own raw materials, process them, transport the useful materials to the location in the cell in which they are needed, and eliminate waste. The cell can repair itself and, most remarkable of all, can duplicate itself with incredible precision. I am unable to accept the claim that all this came about by random processes. Everything around us shows evidence of intelligent design which points to an intelligent designer.

That is enough for me to look for a Creator. There are at least 4 different ways the Creator could have proceeded. 1) The Deist typically believe the Creator made all things and then went off to do other things. 2) Many theists believe that the Creator is still involved in Creation but has left the mysteries of the why for us to figure out. 3) By prayer and meditation the Creator will reveal truth to us. 4) The Creator has already revealed to us everything we need to know.

I contend that the first 3 are unworkable as to having any confidence of knowing anything at all. # 1 is like a boy buying a puppy dog and refusing to take any responsibility for it. # 2 is just a guessing game. # 3, which is probably the most common for those who believe in a Creator is too subjective. One can never have any confidence that such "truth" is any more reliable than the guesses of # 2. We are all capable of self-deception and prone to create a god in our own image. That leaves me with # 4. The Bible is the only revelation that I have found to be consistent and reliable.

All that to say, the Bible teaches that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. That seems to me to be quite reasonable.

What is it that has always been versus that which has a starting point or beginning?

I think I've already answered that, but, the God of the Bible if I wasn't clear.

Why so much pain& neglect in the world?

God gave the first man and woman a choice to either obey or rebel against His rule. They chose to rebel and the earth was cursed. Pain and suffering can either drive us to God's mercy or drive us to continue in rebellion.

What gives you motivation to continue on living?

Knowing God. Knowing that through Christ I can leave the rebellion and be reconciled to God and become part of His Kingdom. Knowing through His Word that I was created for a specific purpose.

Do you do it for the honor &reputation that might live on for some time after we go unconscious without resurrection- if you have no confidence that anyone will resurrect after unconsciousness that is supposed to be permanent?

The Bible teaches resurrection and I believe it.

Does everyone get an immortal existance of pain or in heaven& the only choice is between the two, or is pain temporary, even if it must be exeperienced for some time?

There is no short answer to your question. A complete answer would require looking at all the Scriptures on the subject. I'll give just a few but if you want to look into it further, see https://reformed.org/eschatology/eternal-punishment-by-aw-pink/. Dr. Pink answers just about any objection. Jesus speaks of those who will receive greater judgment/condemnation which implies some will receive lesser judgment/condemnation. He also speaks of some being least in the Kingdom of Heaven and some being the greatest in it. Thus it seems the eternal state is more analog than binary. However, He also speaks of the body of the rebellious being cast into Hell, everlasting fire, the fire of Hell, the everlasting fire prepared for the Devil and his angels. So, there is clearly an eternal separation from God for the rebellious.

Just to be clear, Jesus defines the rebellious as those who refuse to come to Him in faith and repentance.

If everyone gets an immortal existence, what is the point of a resurrection?

God created the world and all things good. After creating man and woman He called it "very good." We were created to exercise Godly dominion over the earth as vice-regents under God, stewards of the earth. Because of man's rebellion, evil has reigned and mankind destroys God's Creation instead of nurturing and tending it. Jesus came to restore mankind to its original purpose. Thus, with the final judgment, there will be new heavens and earth with God's resurrected people exercising dominion and Godly stewardship as originally intended. What a day that will be!

You lost me on that one. I don't understand the claim that Pink is mistaken because he didn't reference a verse that arguably has nothing to do with the topic. Nor do I understand what significance a statement from one that Jesus called the father of lies can have in determining truth other than teaching us his methods of deception.

As for the punishment being eternal--the Greek word translated "destroy" (as in Matthew 10:28) does not mean annihilation or to cause to cease to exist. As I previously mentioned, Jesus says that the rebellious would suffer the same fate as the devil and his angels. Revelation 20:10 says that those would be tormented day and night forever and ever. Compare Revelation 14:11 which applies this to their human followers as well.

I certainly can understand why many do not like this doctrine, but God's decrees are not determined by how we feel about them. Matthew 25:46: The rebellious go to everlasting punishment and the redeemed to everlasting life. Seems quite clear to me.

Yes, aionios can be translated "to the ages" or "for eons" or something along those lines. It seems to me that the *consistent* interpretation is that if Jesus used it twice in the same sentence it would have the same meaning in both cases.

Yes, they will suffer but it will be for as long as God sees fit, not endless though.

If you ended the sentence with the word "fit," we would agree. :) Why put a condition on what God can do? Anyway, hopefully we can agree that punishment and torment "to the ages" should be a deterrent to remaining in rebellion against God and an encouragement to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ.