really? there's competing theories and refinements for everything. is the universe made of multidimensional vibrating strings or a network of localised gravity loops?
 
death and creation really aren't very important topics though.

Are you (and golden ratio) suggesting that the only thing keeping scientists/atheists from killing each other is a common enemy? I can't see scientists/atheists suicide bombing, torturing, or crusading/starting 'science' wars. I mean, I suppose I don't have any evidence to the contrary, but that just comes off as very silly to me. (EDIT: also, your examples fit into the "science/atheist" category. I mentioned earlier that I couldn't see anything that doesn't fit into either that or theism as opposing sides)

Death and Creation are important to most people. Death in particular to me. I want to live forever. Creation is just a curiosity in comparison. Whether Me or you find either to be important to ourselves personally isn't the issue. Unless you think it isn't important to most individuals in which case:
What brings you to this belief that Death and Creation aren't important topics to people?

If you are talking as if importance of those 2 topics is independent of popular or personal belief. I say, meaning comes from what we make of it. It's absurd to think there is some sort of hard-coded importance in the universe. Even if there was, I or others might not find it very meaningful, thus defeating the very idea.


EDIT:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_neural_network <---might wanna read this.

I have studied ANNs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_neural_network) for my degree and it gave some insight into BNNs and changed the way I perceived my thought processes and those of others.

It's a very powerful analogy but hard to grasp from a linear perspective. The associative nature of the brain is what sets it apart. Memory in the brain is distributed, results are determined by weighted signals which change based on experience.

I like your argument. It's similar to the paranoia that people have about being teleported ;D

I'll be sure to read those when I got time. (though as a layman, I do not know if I'll get it)

Out of curiosity, do you like my argument because you think it has merit or because its merely amusing? I'm thinking that latter since you used the word 'paranoia' to describe it, but I suppose paranoia isn't always a bad thing.

Before and after?

Yeah I want to read/watch this. It sounds hilarious... though depressing.

Blasphemy Is by Douglas Preston. I'll admit I skimmed it, but I might read it in full later.

And  Faust, I work in retail. BTW Vell, I'm not completely certain that science and religion are incompatible- in fact Blasphemy touches on the idea of science as religion. Not in the sense of blind faith, either. . . but as a profound understanding of the universe.

in Islam they're considered intrinsically linked, but people ignore this because religion = Christianity

Only for people who can't see beyond the edge of their own bible.

re: the whole stephen hawking thing, there was a thing on the news last night or the night before or w/e RECENTLY that talked about that stephen hawking quote and then went BUT THIS TWELVE YEAR OLD BOY DISAGREES.  HE SAYS HE WENT TO HEAVEN WHEN HE WAS YOUNGER AND IN A COMA.  HIS PASTOR DAD BACKS HIM UP.  WHO WINS THIS DEBATE? ???  THE 12 YEAR OLD.  STATISTICALLY MOST AMERICANS BELIEVE IN HEAVEN.  HEH, TAKE THAT STEPHEN HAWKING.

not joking not only did they consider this a legit thing to put in the news, they also declared a 12 year old boy the winner of this "debate".  even though his end of the argument was just "nuh-uh".

Are people in Kentucky going crazy over the end of the world in three days too?