Atheist Theory Debates

[Feathers in Hair]

This has been created as an off-shoot of the "Atheist Theories" topic.

 

[robtex]

This has been created as an off-shoot of the "Atheist Theories" topic.

An off-shoot? Maybe. A shoot-off more likely

 

[chuck010342]

This has been created as an off-shoot of the "Atheist Theories" topic.

so whats the point of this topic? to discuss what?

 

[Feathers in Hair]

so whats the point of this topic? to discuss what?

It' s an area for the people that are currently discussing this topic in the aforementioned thread to come and be able to debate, if they wish.

 

[retrorich]

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in God, gods, goddesses and other supernatural beings/powers. No theories involved.

 

[michel]

In all seriousness, Pah is well read, and has a wonderful set of arguments against their being a God (or perhaps more of a God being a construct by mankind because of a need)...........where is he ? Pah .....PAH ?????????

 

[linwood]

I brought this thread in from the prior topic in discussion

You know nothing about big bang theory. Just the little fliers they write dumbed down for people who do not have any scientific background, which of course do not have the whole theory in them.

I think this is extremely unfair.
I have confidence in my understanding of Big Bang Theory and I`m in complete argreement with C&N`s understanding of it.

You have not rebutted his points.
You`ve merely pushed them aside because his is not the popular theory.

Please rebut his points
Here is the meat of his argument.

And by the way, your bootleg theory consists of only three pieces of evidence, two of which I have previously stated (yet apparently I know nothing that I am talking about right?)

1. Cosmic Background radiation

2. Cosmic Nuecleosynthesis (Helium Abundance)

3. Universe Expansion

Also, who says those three pieces of evidence are exclusively for the Big Bang Theory? I bet I could come up with way more logical arguments using those three. In fact here is one right now, off the top of my head.

It sounds to me as if he knows something about Big bang theory or he`s at least researching it at some level.

I don`t see how you can argue his statement.
There is no more empirical evidence for popular Big Bang Theory than what he has posted .

The Big Bang theory is and always has been nothing more than a "hypothesis" .

There is no evidence of a singularity, the very concept itself is something any skeptic should be doubtful of considering it cannot even be defined.
There is no evidence that space & time have any physical properties.

Calling "Big Bang" a "theory" does harm to actual scientific theory.

can you logically explain to everyone your version of how we came to be,

I can.
I don`t know.
That is the only logical explanation there ever has been or ever likely will be for the topic.
At least it`s more intellectually honest than
"The Big Bang did it'" or "God Did it."

 

[Ryan2065]

I think this is extremely unfair.
I have confidence in my understanding of Big Bang Theory and I`m in complete argreement with C&N`s understanding of it.

See linwood, C&N was saying that he was well read on the big bang theory, but he knew NOTHING about the party that involved the singularity and knew nothing about the theory that stated that time did not exist before the big bang. If he did he decided to push those theories aside to make his argument stronger and hoped no one would call him on it. Either way something that he said did not hold any water. To say you are in complete agreement with C&N's understanding of the big bang would be saying that you want to know what was happening before the big bang... Which means you believe time went on before the big bang, which means you do not know the current theories.

You have not rebutted his points.
You`ve merely pushed them aside because his is not the popular theory.

Please rebut his points
Here is the meat of his argument.

And by the way, your bootleg theory consists of only three pieces of evidence, two of which I have previously stated (yet apparently I know nothing that I am talking about right?)

1. Cosmic Background radiation

2. Cosmic Nuecleosynthesis (Helium Abundance)

3. Universe Expansion

Also, who says those three pieces of evidence are exclusively for the Big Bang Theory? I bet I could come up with way more logical arguments using those three. In fact here is one right now, off the top of my head.

It sounds to me as if he knows something about Big bang theory or he`s at least researching it at some level.

I don`t see how you can argue his statement.
There is no more empirical evidence for popular Big Bang Theory than what he has posted .

Why should I argue something that I know to be true (there is some other evidce for the big bang, but it is over your heads.... these are the popular theories because they are easy for people who have not had 4 years of college physics to understand.) Here is a quick abstract I found about this stuff, new evidence not listed in those 3...
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v87/i9/e091301
And it only took me 5 minutes to find on a quick google search. But anyways, back to the argument at hand. So just beacuse there are 3 pieces of evidence does this mean that the big bang probably did not happen? You could be given 3 pieces of evidence... One guy really hates his neighbor... A knife was found in his dead neighbors back, the knife belonged to the guy who hated his neighbor. This is only 3 pieces of evidence, but you can get a pretty good idea of who put that knife in the neighbor just from that evidence. The idea of a singularity where there is no time I am pretty sure was given by Einsteins equation long before the concept of a singularity even came about. To think that some quack scientist was drinking beer one day and decided a singularity was a good idea is just nonsense. This is a well thought out idea and currently it is the best conclusion based on the information at hand.

The Big Bang theory is and always has been nothing more than a "hypothesis"

No, its actually a theory... hense that "theory" going after its name.

There is no evidence of a singularity, the very concept itself is something any skeptic should be doubtful of considering it cannot even be defined.
There is no evidence that space & time have any physical properties.

Yea, no evidence at all that the singularity ever existed...
http://ej.iop.org/links/q72/WSyTnZVEE2XGrft89Zj4qA/jhep062002017.pdf (page 16 describes a spacetime that has a singularity)
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/math-ph/pdf/0202/0202008.pdf (page 7 describes how einstein's equation predicts a singularity)

I could find lots of other articles on them but I'll let you dissect these two first. Basically there is EVIDENCE for a singularity, just there is no 100% proof for one. It is predicted by many equations (which is evidence) but no actual proof exists that it ever happened.

Calling "Big Bang" a "theory" does harm to actual scientific theory.

Here is the definition of a theory....
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
I would say this fits the big bang theory quite well, hense it being called a theory.

At least it`s more intellectually honest than
"The Big Bang did it'" or "God Did it."

So the big bang theory is not intellectually honest? Sorry, but it is, moreso than "god did it" seeing as there is evidence for the big bang theory and there is none for god did it.

 

[linwood]

To say you are in complete agreement with C&N's understanding of the big bang would be saying that you want to know what was happening before the big bang...

It says no such thing, I`ve already stated that you cannot know what happened before the Big Bang.
Thats the entire point.

Which means you believe time went on before the big bang, which means you do not know the current theories.

No, it simply means I disagree that there was no time before the Big Bang.
I see no reason for time to have not existed.
The Big Bang theory cannot supply evidence of the lack of time before the point of creation.
The Big Bang theory posits that time before is unknowable and therefore unecessary .
You are confusing mathmatical algorythms for reality.
In order for time to stop/cease to exist or start/begin it must have physical properties.
Time nor space has any directy or indirectly observable physical properties.
Please provide evidence of the physical properties of time.

Here is a quick abstract I found about this stuff, new evidence not listed in those 3...
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v87/i9/e091301

The above link does nothing but give evidence for redshift.
Redshift was included in the three pioints of evidence given to you.
Redshift is not being denied here, in fact C&N listed it as one of the three pieces of evidence there is for the BB.
Here...

3. Universe Expansion

The reason we know the universe is expanding is due to redshif.
Redshift says nothing of time and or space having physical properties.
Redshift is not in argument here, although I could it`s not the point.

So just beacuse there are 3 pieces of evidence does this mean that the big bang probably did not happen?

No but thats not the point nor what C&N was debating.
He didn`t deny the BB nor will I.
He seems to be denying the non-existence of space and time before the BB as well as the existence of a singularity.
Do you have evidence that there was literally no space or time before the BB?
Do you have evidence of a singularity as defined in the BB theory ?

The idea of a singularity where there is no time I am pretty sure was given by Einsteins equation long before the concept of a singularity even came about.
To think that some quack scientist was drinking beer one day and decided a singularity was a good idea is just nonsense.

And it is nonsense no one here but yourself has brought up.
It`s a strawman and has absolutely nothing to do with anything.
I know who predicted a singularity and I know why and how he predicted a singularity.
I just haven`t seen evidence of it`s physical existence and neither did Eistein.
Please stop jumping to conclsuions about what I think and what I don`t.

Yea, no evidence at all that the singularity ever existed...
http://ej.iop.org/links/q72/WSyTnZVEE2XGrft89Zj4qA/jhep062002017.pdf (page 16 describes a spacetime that has a singularity)
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/math-ph/pdf/0202/0202008.pdf (page 7 describes how einstein's equation predicts a singularity)

Your first link is 404 (shame really because thats the one that interests me) and your second link is an abstract of Einsteins prediction of a singularity.
There`s no evidence of a singularity there.
There`s the prediction of one and it`s right handy too considering it`s a prediction that can never be falsified.
Please provide evidence that a singularity as defined by the popular BB model exists did exist or could exist.

I could find lots of other articles on them but I'll let you dissect these two first. Basically there is EVIDENCE for a singularity, just there is no 100% proof for one.

I say the interpretation of the evidence goes to far in it`s assumptions considering it posits a phenomenon that has never been observed in our material world.

It is predicted by many equations (which is evidence) but no actual proof exists that it ever happened.

Yes it is and I have no problem with those equations, I think it`s a wonderful hypothesis that has led us farther into the universe than any other idea.
However, it`s just an equation, not reality and it goes to far.

Here is the definition of a theory....
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

The BB doesn`t do this, the evidence used to support BB does this (Redshift,Remnant Black Body radiation) but these peices of evidence we`ve been talking about don`t necessarily align with the popular model of BB (Which by the way is losing popularity lately).
They also support other theories that are just as viable as the BB.

So the big bang theory is not intellectually honest?

I never said that, I meant that denying there is any other possible explanation than the BB is intellectually dishonest.
Assuming the existence of physical phenomenon that breaks the laws of physics unecessarily with no evidence for them is intellectually dishonest.

 

[Merlin]

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in God, gods, goddesses and other supernatural beings/powers. No theories involved. Of course, if you really want theories, advanced logic, arguments/counterarguments and philosophical mumbo-jumbo, you can always consult Jayhawker (the artist formerly know as Deut).

It is actually impossible just to 'not believe in something'. You must actually 'strongly believe in nothing'.

In case you think there is no difference, we have already examined earlier the fact that it needs a tremendous amount of faith to be an atheist. You have to be absolutely sure beyond any doubt whatsoever that none of the belief systems anywhere in the world that involve any sort of spiritual component of life are all wrong.

that is real faith, and takes quite a lot of courage.

 

[retrorich]

It is actually impossible just to 'not believe in something'. You must actually 'strongly believe in nothing'.

Semantic double-talk.

In case you think there is no difference, we have already examined earlier the fact that it needs a tremendous amount of faith to be an atheist.

It takes no faith at all to be an atheist.

You have to be absolutely sure beyond any doubt whatsoever that none of the belief systems anywhere in the world that involve any sort of spiritual component of life are all wrong.

That is not true; as an atheist, I do no say that I am sure that all religious/spiritual belief systems are wrong. I simply say that I do not believe they are right. It is impossible to either prove or disprove religious beliefs.

that is real faith, and takes quite a lot of courage.

My atheism does not require faith or courage.

 

[michel]

It is actually impossible just to 'not believe in something'. You must actually 'strongly believe in nothing'.

In case you think there is no difference, we have already examined earlier the fact that it needs a tremendous amount of faith to be an atheist. You have to be absolutely sure beyond any doubt whatsoever that none of the belief systems anywhere in the world that involve any sort of spiritual component of life are all wrong.

that is real faith, and takes quite a lot of courage.

merlin;

I suggest you stick to your side of the fence; how on Earth can you decide what it is like to be an atheist ? Are you one yourself ?

You must actually belive strongly in nothing ? - I don't not believe that I should not have been about to could............:biglaugh:

Pray, refresh our memories (mine in particular) as to why it needs a tremendous amount of faith to be an atheist.

 

[Ryan2065]

It says no such thing, I`ve already stated that you cannot know what happened before the Big Bang.
Thats the entire point.

You are in complete agreement with C&N? Here are some things then that are you in agreement with...

"Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe". That doesn't defy any laws of physics or chemistry... And its funny how in the bible God just makes the universe one day, like your little belief. The two so far go hand in hand (except switch the "nothing " with God in "Prior to that moment there was nothing") The difference is that science laws state that matter cannot be created or destroyed. So it seems science contradicts itself here, but that is ok because it is better than believing in God right?

Here he states that the big bang is impossible because matter cannot be created or destroyed.

No, it simply means I disagree that there was no time before the Big Bang.
I see no reason for time to have not existed.
The Big Bang theory cannot supply evidence of the lack of time before the point of creation.
The Big Bang theory posits that time before is unknowable and therefore unecessary .
You are confusing mathmatical algorythms for reality.
In order for time to stop/cease to exist or start/begin it must have physical properties.
Time nor space has any directy or indirectly observable physical properties.
Please provide evidence of the physical properties of time.

So you are saying that because the big bang theory cannot supply "physical" evidence that you will not believe it? Because there is no "picture" of this singularity by time traveling astronomy scientists you won't ever take their word for it? And I am confusing mathmatical algorythms for reality? Because nothing in reality follows any math algorythm at all? And what is this you are saying that in order for time to stop it must have physical properties? No, it means it must have a start. We know that we can slow time down, this has been done. So why do you state that time cannot slow down so much that it stops? Einsteins theories have been used to calculate how much time would slow down the faster one moves, this was observed and was predicted 100% accurately with einsteins theories... so why should we say that they are wrong when they predict something we have not seen before?

No but thats not the point nor what C&N was debating.
He didn`t deny the BB nor will I.
He seems to be denying the non-existence of space and time before the BB as well as the existence of a singularity.
Do you have evidence that there was literally no space or time before the BB?
Do you have evidence of a singularity as defined in the BB theory ?

The evidence for the singularities are defined in the equations used today. So are you saying that these equations are right today, but that sometime many years ago they magically were not right?

And it is nonsense no one here but yourself has brought up.
It`s a strawman and has absolutely nothing to do with anything.
I know who predicted a singularity and I know why and how he predicted a singularity.
I just haven`t seen evidence of it`s physical existence and neither did Eistein.
Please stop jumping to conclsuions about what I think and what I don`t.

You stated that there was absolutely no evidence for a singularity. Math equations are evidence for a singularity. If you want to say that there is no physical evidence for a singularity then I will agree with you. If you say that there is no evidence for a singularity, then I will debate you on this. My statement was not a strawman, you say there is no evidence for a singularity so you must think that some quack scientist came up with the theory (Because no real scientist would come up with a theory without ANY evidence at all)

Your first link is 404 (shame really because thats the one that interests me) and your second link is an abstract of Einsteins prediction of a singularity.
There`s no evidence of a singularity there.
There`s the prediction of one and it`s right handy too considering it`s a prediction that can never be falsified.
Please provide evidence that a singularity as defined by the popular BB model exists did exist or could exist.

So Einsteins model that states that a singularity could exist is wrong? Is that what you are saying when you ask for evidence that a singularity could exist (seeing as Einsteins equations predict just that.)
[size=-1]www.iop.org/EJ/article/1126-6708/2002/06/017/jhep062002017.pdf
Try that link... It should work for the first page.

[/size]I say the interpretation of the evidence goes to far in it`s assumptions considering it posits a phenomenon that has never been observed in our material world.[size=-1]

So would you say that no scientist could ever make a theory about the start of the universe due to the simple fact that we did not see it or anything like it?

[/size]Yes it is and I have no problem with those equations, I think it`s a wonderful hypothesis that has led us farther into the universe than any other idea.
However, it`s just an equation, not reality and it goes to far.[size=-1]

Yes, they go wayy too far on the singularity concept... Cause you know, time can be slowed down, and the universe is expanding (which means it had to come in at some point) so to think that the universe came from one point where there was no time is just silly!

[/size]The BB doesn`t do this, the evidence used to support BB does this (Redshift,Remnant Black Body radiation) but these peices of evidence we`ve been talking about don`t necessarily align with the popular model of BB (Which by the way is losing popularity lately).
They also support other theories that are just as viable as the BB.[size=-1]

So you say that the BB theory does not fit the theory critera because it does not attempt to explain a set of facts? The evidence used to support the BB theory would be the facts the BB theory tries to explain... I don't get how this is even debatable...

[/size] I never said that, I meant that denying there is any other possible explanation than the BB is intellectually dishonest.
Assuming the existence of physical phenomenon that breaks the laws of physics unecessarily with no evidence for them is intellectually dishonest.[size=-1]

please tell me what laws of physics the BB theory breaks? Remember, the laws of physics are most usually math equations, so please tell me what equations the BB theory does not go with, or if you can find laws of physics not supported by equations, please tell me what doesn't support it. (I myself am a Math major and my roommate is a Physics major so we await your response)
[/size]

 

[dan]

It takes no faith at all to be an atheist.

Faith is the basis of all you do. You have no religious faith, but you have faith every night when you go to bed that you will get up in the morning. If you didn't you would cower in fear every night. Every time you brush your teeth you have faith that the toothpaste will do its job. Everyone has faith, some just place it in other areas. Some place it in science, some in religion. Some in both. It takes faith to be any kind of human being. You are no different.

That is not true; as an atheist, I do no say that I am sure that all religious/spiritual belief systems are wrong. I simply say that I do not believe they are right. It is impossible to either prove or disprove religious beliefs.My atheism does not require faith or courage.

That is the definition of an agnostic, not an atheist. You don't even know what you are.

ag·nos·tic
n. 1. a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.



ag·nosti·c
Word History: An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and heaven but holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not they exist. The term agnostic was fittingly coined by the 19th-century British scientist Thomas H. Huxley, who believed that only material phenomena were objects of exact knowledge. He made up the word from the prefix a-, meaning "without, not," as in amoral, and the noun Gnostic. Gnostic is related to the Greek word gnosis, "knowledge," which was used by early Christian writers to mean "higher, esoteric knowledge of spiritual things"; hence, Gnostic referred to those with such knowledge.

Noun1.atheist - someone who denies the existence of god

I suggest you reevaluate your affiliation. Your Pyrrhonism is nothing new and nothing special. It is the mantra of all who avoid personal responsibility and genuine regard for truth.

 

[Jaymes]

Faith is the basis of all you do. You have no religious faith, but you have faith every night when you go to bed that you will get up in the morning. If you didn't you would cower in fear every night.

You say that like everyone who doesn't believe in an afterlife fears death...

As a sidenote, I'd suggest not saying people who are atheist or agnosting are avoiding personal responsibility or the truth. Many atheists I know wished they could believe in a higher power, but it just doesn't make sense to them. (In fact, here's one speaking right now.)

 

[linwood]

You are in complete agreement with C&N? Here are some things then that are you in agreement with...

No, again that is not what I said.
I specifically copy/pasted what Part of C&n`s argument I am in complete agreement for the implicit purpose of avoiding this strawman.

So you are saying that because the big bang theory cannot supply "physical" evidence that you will not believe it?

I never said I didn`t believe the BB, I said I disagree with portions of the popular theory of BB.
The portions that are emprically evidenced I cannot disagree with.
Many people disagree on portions of theories yet have no problem holding to those parts that are without a doubt.

Because there is no "picture" of this singularity by time traveling astronomy scientists you won't ever take their word for it?

Again No..No..No..Please please please can you stop putting words in my mouth?
I never asked for a "sample" of a singularity defined by the popular BB model I asked for evidence that any phenomenon known in nature meets the s[ecific requirements to be called a sngularity defined by the popular BB model.
As far as taking someones word for something I consider it a matter of trust.
I trust my wife more than any human I`ve met yet taking her word for creation would lead me to believing some deity is responsible for it all.

And what is this you are saying that in order for time to stop it must have physical properties?

I`m saying that in order for time to "stop" it must "be" therefore it must have physical properties because I know of nothing else that "exists" that has no physical properties .

No, it means it must have a start. We know that we can slow time down, this has been done.

Please supply some evidence for this that has been evidenced in experimentation free of the effects of gravity (or any other external force)on the subject of the experiment.
If you can do this I will concede the entire argument that time is not physical and can indeed "start" and "stop"

Einsteins theories have been used to calculate how much time would slow down the faster one moves, this was observed and was predicted 100% accurately with einsteins theories..

Please supply some evidence for this observation that has been evidenced in experimentation free of the effects of gravity (or any other external force)on the subject of the experiment.

The evidence for the singularities are defined in the equations used today. So are you saying that these equations are right today, but that sometime many years ago they magically were not right?

I`m saying the equations go beyond physical reality.
Not that they are "right" or "wrong".
Whether they are "right" or "wrong" is subjective to the definitions of "right" and "wrong"

You stated that there was absolutely no evidence for a singularity. Math equations are evidence for a singularity.

No..I said there is not "physical" evidence for a singularity.

If you want to say that there is no physical evidence for a singularity then I will agree with you.

Thank you, that took far less time than it usually does.

If you say that there is no evidence for a singularity, then I will debate you on this. My statement was not a strawman,

My apologies.
It most probably was not intended as such by you.
Many of the disagreements I have in this particular debate result from miscommunication and misunderstanding of positions.
This is probably the problem here.

So Einsteins model that states that a singularity could exist is wrong?[size=-1]

No mathmatically it is correct.
In reality nothing like the popular BB definition of a singularity has ever been evidenced and they very properties of such a singularity are impossible through observed properties of nature.

So would you say that no scientist could ever make a theory about the start of the universe due to the simple fact that we did not see it or anything like it?

Not at all I love the BB theory, it`s an awesome ride and has taken human knowledge farther out into our universe than any scientific concept ever has and all that take it even farther will owe their existence to the popular BB theory.

So you say that the BB theory does not fit the theory critera because it does not attempt to explain a set of facts? The evidence used to support the BB theory would be the facts the BB theory tries to explain... I don't get how this is even debatable...

Perhaps I have the wrong idea of what a "theory" is.
I take it a bit farther than most.
To me the BB theory does explain the available facts but parsimony simply shaves away so much that isn`t necessary(singularity, physical properties of space and time).
This expansion we are witnessing could have begun in so many different ways and at so many different rates with so many different forces we cannot be aware of playing a part in it it`s not helpful to publicly state we"know" what happened.
It confuses the layman and leads him to false beliefs whether intentionally or not it does this.
In my mind all we can really say is ..
*The physical universe we can view is expanding.
*There must have been some force to begin this expansion.

please tell me what laws of physics the BB theory breaks?

I should have used the term "physical laws" which is what most people think of when hearing "Laws of Physics"
The "law" I`m referencing in regard to just one extraneous point of the popular BB model is the one that says you can`t fit a finite mount of matter into an infinitesimal point.

(I myself am a Math major and my roommate is a Physics major so we await your response)

[/size]

And that is the crux of our disagreement as I`ve already mentioned.
You speak of whats possible mathematically and I speak of whats possible in reality.
they are not the same.
I believe C&N`s argument is based in physical reality, you are rebutting it with mathmatical equations.

You`re not wrong.
Mathematically all these things you speak of are possible.
C&N`s not wrong none of these things you speak of ever have been or ever will be physically evidenced.

 

[dan]

You say that like everyone who doesn't believe in an afterlife fears death...

As a sidenote, I'd suggest not saying people who are atheist or agnosting are avoiding personal responsibility or the truth. Many atheists I know wished they could believe in a higher power, but it just doesn't make sense to them. (In fact, here's one speaking right now.)

I didn't believe in an afterlife, andI feared death a whole lot. I wish I could understand how people can't feardeath, butit just doesn't make sense to me.

Everyone can find the truth, you just have to be willing to take the necessary steps.

 

[dan]

Also, if one is an agnostic or an atheist because diligent research and consideration, they would know the difference between the two. Those who don't know the difference subscribe to these theories flippantly and with no regard for responsibility or truth.

 

[linwood]

I didn't believe in an afterlife, andI feared death a whole lot. I wish I could understand how people can't feardeath, butit just doesn't make sense to me.

The process of dying scares me, death itself doesn`t though.

 

[Jaymes]

I didn't believe in an afterlife, andI feared death a whole lot. I wish I could understand how people can't feardeath, butit just doesn't make sense to me.

Just like believing in the higher power most religions subscribe to doesn't make sense to me We can try to explain to each other all day why we think the way we do, but at the end of the day we still think what we think; it's just a difference in the way our minds work.

Everyone can find the truth, you just have to be willing to take the necessary steps.

There are so many things labelled 'the truth! 100% guaranteed!' that there's no way to know what the truth (as far as religious matters go) really is anymore. The best we can do is find what hurts other least and improves us the most, and wing it. Since different people improve according to different things, there won't be a one-size-fits-all religion/philosophy...