Tell me what I got wrong

Lots of great responses, I want to reply in depth to everyone, but this would take quite a lot of time, so I will stick to short responses for now.

I concur that it is not a theological definition of a soul, I reject the theological one as a pile of very flawed nonsensical garbage. I do understand that this can create confusion I apologize for the confusion. I was presenting my own conclusions on the very broad term of “soul” in general, a very broad and vague term.

I agree NDE’s and OBE’s are not well supported scientific findings and should be dismissed.

I base this on the fact that any and all concepts of soul has zero basis or findings in reality. It only exists in our heads, part of the fake reality that exists in our heads - “brain states” - to borrow your term.
Perhaps rewording will help: souls are the product of human thought and imagination, but without anyway to observe, remains strictly within the realm of pure fantasy.

I had a similar conclusion for many years, and I still have it as part of my own meaning of life. But the answer to the age old question of “what is the meaning of life” I feel the few hints we get all point to the same conclusion: there is no meaning to life in reality.

This to me would lead me to further conclude that “love” is in the head, where the reality of it is biological programming to reproduce and safety in numbers being the primary driver of the very difficult to describe/explain open ended term.

A question I have considered as well, which further leads me to think infinite absolute nothing is an even crazier claim then infinite space.

By literal definitions I would consider this to be an oxymoron. Again, to me, adding credence to the idea there is no such thing as “absolute nothing.”

All your valid questions I have also considered and they all to me build for the case of infinite space rather then non infinite space.

I am not sure if it is possible to be precise about speculation on infinity, but I will try.

Fits what we do know about the space we can observe. Fits what is known through observation and study so far. And it most certainly fits my own thoughts/speculation other questions, like the “how did everything come to be?”

I assume most all of us can all agree that current reality in which we reside is not “nothing.” That all we have observed so far is something, we have never observed “nothing.” For space to be “finite” there would have to be “infinite nothing” surrounding it. Infinite nothing, something we humans have yet to encounter/detect in even finite amounts.

It also neatly fits/explains how everything came to be. No matter how small the odds, in infinite space, if it is possible, it can occur and it can occur infinitely.

I purposely went broad. These are not small constrained piecemeal ideas. I had no idea what the response to my posting would be, I kept it short and to the point. Let me know if you would like me to rephrase the question into something less broad.

Sure, we are talking about gravity, the force that attracts mass to mass.

Going backwards from why am I (or we) are here: a planet conducive to the formation of complex life, a planet created by gravity from available nearby mass, orbiting a sun created and maintained by gravity, with mass created from the forces of gravity from the observable parts of the big bang.

I do not understand why mass attracts mass, so that is the end point of the question of “why everything is the way things are.” To me the farthest we have gotten is mass attracts mass or if you like “the force of mass attracting mass” also known as gravity.

You are right to be dubious. I think you already know writing your response that there is no way to present objective evidence for the conclusion that space is infinite. Just like there is none for that space is finite and beyond that is infinite nothing. There is no way to even observe infinity/lack of by any method. This is strictly within the realm of unsubstantiated theory.

I am asking for what is wrong with the thoughts/ideas I presented in my original post. Yes, I agree the utter lack of objective evidence is a major issue.

I am hoping for more reasons to consider other possible answers other then simple disregarding all of it because there is no objective evidence, especially when talking about stuff where objective evidence is impossible.

I also think challenging bad ideas and beliefs is important. I am saying further investigation in the possibility of a creator god based on the information available is a waste of time, I long ago abandoned any hope that my challenging of bad idea and beliefs will change peoples mind on something they hold as strongly as their religion/god.

Was in response to:

I think this is different from the claims theist make.

I made a post about my thoughts, asked people to tell me what is wrong with my thoughts. I am making no claims, I am not telling people to believe my thoughts, but instead asking people to critique them. I picked an atheist board to avoid “because god” conversations that is not a helpful critique.

I understand the issue and importance of evidence and proof on making claims and the inherent flaw of my line of reasoning/thoughts lack evidence/proof. Are there other flaws you can point out?

Missed that, I concur, I think ego plays a huge role to MrDawn’s comment of “why most Christians believe in the bullshit that the Bible preaches.”

A tremendous amount of response, better and more then I hoped for. Thanks to everyone that took the time to respond.

1 Like

Well, yeah, what with being an emotion and all. Love does not have an objective reality as far as I can tell.

I can only repeat that today I have some ideas about what love is not. I really have no idea of what love is, although I think it probably exists because I think it would have evolutionary benefits. Maternal love seems real to me. However, I’m not convinced that comes under the heading of altruistic love. I’m not convinced there is such an animal, apart from [arguably] some individual actions. I lean towards ethical egoism, but an unable to accept it as a general principle. It simply seems to describe almost all of my behaviour.

A skeptic, I avoid claims of certitude and sweeping generalisations.

My Reference; Egoism and Altruism, Ronald Milo.

A experiences are “near death”. It’s a necessity condition of being alive. The conclusions associated with alleged memories stored in brains dying of oxygen starvation are biased and assumptive in all the examples I’ve seen.

I can’t think of any reason that need be true (or false for that matter). How are you so certain?

ps: when you are saying infinite, you are referring to infinite volume, right?

I cant be sure if its because I am just getting grumpier or wiser with age but the value of ‘love’ has waned for me and gradually I’ve turned to the power of respect. I cant help but think that if I had viewed the women in my life with greater respect than through the vague lense of romantic love I might have been laid more often or had more meaningful relationships and thus a life more fulfilled.
Too late for remorse, but surveying the regretful emotional wreckage that decorates the trail of my life I can only now hope I have learned to treat everyone I know and will meet with more respect than I have given in the past. Love is volatile in stupd and careless hands.

1 Like

I think you are a much wiser person. " Data comparing divorce rates within countries for arranged and love marriage are hard to come by. But in the U.S., between 40 and 50 percent of all marriages end in divorce. In India, the divorce rate for all marriages is about 1 percent and it’s higher for love marriages than arranged ones there.

Marriage for love, so I have read in the sociology texts, is one of the least successful reasons to wed. Love comes and goes. It is an emotion. And unfortunately, when we feel this attraction, we tend to see those we love in the light of rose colored glasses. I think you are much better off with a healthy respect, a good friendship, and mutual goals and understanding as a basis… then if love happens…

Yup. Also in the most careful hands.

Took me far too long to realise that when it comes to declarations of love, that people will convince themselves they are telling the truth at the least. Or they may believe what they say at the time. But people change their minds and they have the right to do so. It just makes it harder when that happens to only one partner in a marriage.

Being the ingenuous romantic ,again for far too long, a declaration of love from me was a blood oath, which I never broke.

Of course there are also the disingenuous, the callous and the opportunist. I call those people ‘cunts’

1 Like

Though there are of course many variables to consider. For example people who have arranged marriages likely have a very conservative family background, so will likely have little, or at least less, freedom of choice to leave a marriage. Even if it is a pernicious or abusive relationship.

That does make sense. To me anyway, not my ex-wife, she left while I was in work.

I thought of that too.

The divorce rate is about as high as with family cutting off each other (parents/grown children).

Love is action and words. The feeling you get may at first “motivate you” to bond, but we understand actions that are contrary to words. Parents can do. Same with mates.

The freedom to leave relationships is important.

1 Like

My understanding:

We know there is “something” For something to be defined as finite it must have some sort of bound, limit. What can limit everything that falls under our definition “something?” Nothing. Unlike something, we have no evidence or way to detect nothing, it is purely theoretical.

For “something” to be finite, it would require nothing, infinite nothing, if nothing was not infinite, then something would have to be infinite.

While we all agree there is “something” we have yet to detect, find, measure etc “nothing.” Nothing could purely be just a human concept, and there is no such thing as “nothing” in reality.

I consider infinite “nothing” to be a far less likely scenario then infinite something. We can claim there is something pretty well. We cant claim it is infinite (likely impossible to us finite beings) but we cant even claim if there is finite “nothing” let alone infinite nothing that I assume would be required for something to be finite.

I am unsure, however I assume when I say infinite, I mean something without bound, both in volume or any other way otherwise it would no longer be infinite, and would have a “bound.”

Snap. Not a Friday night I will ever forget.

I understand that the success rate of second marriages is lower still. I’ve understood why a rational person would want to take the risk again.

I heard that few arranged marriages end in divorce. I think that has more to do with the societies in which such marriages stake place rather than anything else.

EG There is deep shame in having a divorce. Such was the case when I was growing up. Divorce was relatively rare. Eh I didn’t know any kids whose parents were divorced.

In Australia, before no faulty divorce, there was no welfare payments for a divorced woman with or without children.

Bering unmarried and having a child was also deeply shameful. ‘De facto’ relationships were relatively rare. There was no welfare. There were many illegal, often fatal abortions or girls were forced to give up their child.

In Muslim countries the father almost invariably gets custody of any children. The ex wife is not allowed to see her children.

Then Australia introduced no fault divorce. Divorced custodial parents can get a pension until the oldest child is of school age.

‘De facto’ marriages are common, often with children. Today, perhaps due to DNA paternity tests, an illegitimate child has full rights of inheritance, when it used to be none.

My point is that because of changed social a values, people are far les likely to stay in an unhappy relationship. I’ve met people [including my ex wife] who enter a marriage with the attitude 'I can always leave if I don’t like it, or get sick of it"

That there are far fewer divorces in arranged marriages infers nothing in itself. I’d be willing to bet that that a high proportion are dysfunctional/deeply unhappy. Especially for women in countries with dogmatic patriarchal societies, such as say Muslim and Hindu countries.

Perhaps it’s not so much a case of arranged marriages working out as a matter of people staying in lousy marriages because of a lack of practical choices.

Having said all that, I have always been so grateful that I did not marry my first love. I ran into her 30 years later, even stayed with her and her second husband last time I went to England. Bloody hell! We would have killed each other!

As a general principle, based on observation, it’s a very unfortunate couple who marry their true love. Asa general principle, imo, romantic love is a myth, it doesn’t exist. Yes, of course there are exceptions, although I’ve never seen one

Addendum: In long term relationships, the belief that opposites attract is not strictly true. It’s more a matter of like attracts like. I don’t mean personality, I mean values, world views and that much maligned word ‘character’

It’s possible for something to be finite and unbound.
The Earth’s surface is an example. There is a finite amount of surface area, but there is no end to it. You can drive over the surface indefinitely and yet never find an edge.

Space could be the same thing. Maybe there is a finite amount of volume in the universe (an extemely mind boggling amount of volume), but no real end to it.

1 Like

I see no reason that needs to be true, or false. If someone stuck a gun in my face; and told me to answer true or false to that statement; I would have to flip a coin.

That looks like another coin flipper.

Another coin flipper.

I wouldn’t flip a coin on this one. I’d guess false.

Honestly; seems like every other sentence is rather dubious. You asked what you got wrong: that is your answer.

Let us consider some ideas on how this known universe and all-encompassing cosmos work.

For example, one common “interpretation” on cosmology, where this universe originated from a tiny point of massive energy. The universe expands like a soap bubble, and it continues to expand. In concept, there is a boundary between our expanding universe and … what? What is on the other side of that boundary.? Mix in relativity, and it may be possible that because there is no mass, there is no time either. No time, no mass, no radiation, no light, no gravity, nada?

Another idea is that there is a massive cosmos, and our universe is just a little pimple that popped away.

My point is that at present, there are more unknowns than knowns. We are making massive speculations on insufficient data.

@Infinity when you state “far less likely”, what data or statistics are you referencing to attain that conclusion?

I certainly do not know, or am aware of any data pertaining to this subject. I am honest enough to state “I do not know and any speculation is just pulling shit out of my ass”.

Be infinite? Now there is an oxymoron.

Oddly incongruous with marriage vows. I think marriage is a con, in the sense it purports to be something it’s not. It is primarily a financial contract, that people sign either in want of full understanding, or blinded by emotion.

Not a mistake I’d ever make again, certainly not without a water tight prenup. The financial loss was exacerbated by her lies in the divorce petition, that I had let her struggle financially, when the opposite was true.

Hoping to get a short contract in Mexico soon. If it comes off, it should take a lot of the pressure off for a year.


It is. The great lie is the myth of romantic love.

The civil contract of marriage simply did not exist for millennia. A couple decided they wanted to be together so set up house. Witnesses were not required.

Marriage slowly evolved into an important civil contract. For the nobility, the aristocracy and monarchies, it became to be about political and economic alliances. It was [and is] also about protecting property for inheritance.

Marriage enabled the law of primo genitor. That meant that the legal heir could only be the eldest son born to a marriage. Children born within a marriage were legally assumed to be the husband’s children. Bastard children had no right of inheritance until well into the twentieth century. DNA testing changed that.

A daughter could not be the legal heir among the nobility, aristocracy and royalty. This law was used as a plot device in the TV series “Downton Abbey”


Henry V111 had at least one illegitimate son who survived well into adulthood. .He recognised Henry Fitzroy, from with his mistress Elizabeth Blount. There were another six suspected of being his. Even the king could not make any of his illegitimate children heir to the throne.

English History might have been very different indeed had not Henry’s legitimate daughter Elizabeth been queen.


Historians have argued that promo genitor was partly responsible for The Crusades. Because impoverished second, third etc, sons of the nobility went on Crusade to make their fortune, and many did. This enabled them to set up their own [landed] noble house.

100 LIKES! Especially with the fact that women are no longer dependent on or property of males. I personally think the institution should be abolished, (Religions being the exception. If you are silly enough to go that way, so be it.) and civil contracts be the order of the day. (Laws pertaining to children should be enforced. You have a kid, you are responsible for that kid. No exceptions, and, both parties.)

I think, simple 5 year contracts should be sufficient. Renewable at the request of both parties. Make marriage a civil partnership instead of a life long commitment. It just makes sense.

1 Like

Mostly true, but not quite. The Romans practiced adoption in a way that gave the adopted children equal rights as the biological children. Romans could also adopt adults as their offspring, and they would have the same status as biological children. There are even examples of Roman emperors coming to power through adoption.

I agree that marriage is, strictly speaking, nothing more than a contract between the two parties involved. Religious marriages add woo-woo and extra expectations from the religious community to it(§). However, a marriage contract is more than just a formalization in legal terms of a civil partnership. It is designed to give both parties rights and commit them to duties to each other. And it is a means to securing more rights to any children resulting from the sexual and procreational desires of the parents. It is also an instrument to secure the rights and inheritance of the other part if one gets incapacitated or dies, and a way of securing that values built up together are being shared in a certain prescribed way(*) in case of divorce, or at least in somewhat orderly way. And it secures the inheritance of children. It would be quite unreasonable for a marriage contract to just expire because one either forgets to request a renewal, or because one cannot request a renewal, either because of medical incapacitation (being severely ill, being comatose, or having a condition that makes you unable to make informed decisions) or in pathological cases being kidnapped and therefore being unable to renew it. In fact, letting marriage contracts expire by default opens up for a lot of abuse and misuse, so for that reason alone, I think it is a bad idea. For example, the temporary marriages in Islam can be considered to be a legal (and moral) loophole to attempt to legalize prostitution.

(§) Among religious people it is also quite common to view the bare-minimum non-religious marriages to not be “real” marriages, and that you can only be married “before God” or some such nonsense. Some people even marry twice, first as the legal requirement before a judge or some other duly licensed official, then at the superstition-house of their preference (church, or whatever). When I grew up, I heard a lot of talk about this and that couple not being “properly” married (i.e. they were not married in a church). And living in civil partnerships were particularly barbaric. But I digress.

(*) Yes, I am aware that divorce legislation in certain countries and under certain legal and religious systems can be devastatingly unfair, but that’s quite another matter.