First of all, greetings to all the RRS. This thread was derived from the discussion titled "I want to debate with a catholic" because this topic is very important and deserves a special discussion. I hope catholics can argue against this little essay in order to look for a more complete opinion about the problem.

 In an earlier thread, the subject of the eternal occurrence was examined.  For greater detail and consideration of the facets of the proposition mentioned here, the original thread may be of interest, and remarks or critiques of it are perhaps best posted there.  This thread builds on the concept, taking it in a new direction.  We vector from this point in the former dialog:

Max Tegmark in Scientific American's May 2003 issue wrote an article on "Parallel Universes" in which he presents the argument that existences identical to our own recur infinitely over infinite space.  He describes a few different levels of universes, but one of the simplest is that our big banged "universe may in fact be a local space-time "bubble", and that an infinite number of other such bubbles exist.   Anyway, the basic premise of the eternal recurrence hypothesis proceeds from the assumption that the probability of a world coming into existence exactly like our own is finite. If either time or space are infinite then mathematics tells us that our existence will recur an infinite number of times.

Assuming this is true, then our existence survives the death of our flesh in this existence.  What survives over and over, at each moment of our lives, simultaneously throughout the infinite cosmos is the pattern of our life as we lived it and shall always live it.  In short, if the eternal recurrence hypothesis is correct, then we do in fact survive rigor mortis.  

Comments?

How can I convince "armchair theists" that their majority of beliefs in science completely contradict their long-held beliefs in a god?

My parents are theists -- Roman Catholics, to be precise.  They are not of the fundie variety, nor are they regularly-practicing theists.  They hold many opinions based on the Catholic religion (i.e., abortion = bad!), yet they do not adhere to the concepts of a 6000-year-old Earth or a divinely-created universe as stated by the bible.  They are very practical people who hold high regard for much scientific evidence, such as a 13.7-billion-year-old universe, a 4.5-billion-year-old Earth, evolution, etc.  Yet they still hold onto their belief of the existence of a god and eternal salvation based on their beliefs.

I'd like nothing more than to look them directly in the eyes and explain to them that their beliefs in scientific fact completely contradict their theistic beliefs, but I feel as if I'm not well-enough versed to change their minds concerning the fallacy of theism.  What arguments can I use to show them that they should look deeper into science for an understanding of the universe and to reject their theist-centric viewpoints because it goes against everything else they hold to be true?

Thanks in advance for your insights.  I look forward to having a deep and meaningful conversation with them to make an attempt to open their eyes to the truth.

I need counter arguments for the following arguments against anti theism

That religion is a tool and like any tool it can be used for good or evil. You wouldn't outlaw guns so why outlaw cars?

That just because religion has been used for the justification of extremely bad things, that doesn't mean it needs to be stopped and that if that's our argument then why not outlaw books that inspire people to kill. (i.e. catcher in the rye)

That people would find a way to hate other people because they were different without religion.

I would also like your opinions on why religion is a problem, and why it needs to be eliminated.

Also do you think that religions will lead to the end of the world? Why?

And I'm asking this because lately I haven't been ready for certain counter arguments against anti theism and I want to be ready to defend my beliefs.

I need counter arguments for the following arguments against anti theism

That religion is a tool and like any tool it can be used for good or evil. You wouldn't outlaw guns so why outlaw cars?

That just because religion has been used for the justification of extremely bad things, that doesn't mean it needs to be stopped and that if that's our argument then why not outlaw books that inspire people to kill. (i.e. catcher in the rye)

That people would find a way to hate other people because they were different without religion.

I would also like your opinions on why religion is a problem, and why it needs to be eliminated.

Also do you think that religions will lead to the end of the world? Why?

And I'm asking this because lately I haven't been ready for certain counter arguments against anti theism and I want to be ready to defend my beliefs.

On some of the other forum sites, I occasionally posted forums looking for what religionists considered were reasons for belief. The majority of "reasons" were emotionally based. People spoke of an "emptiness" or "meaningless feeling" that they felt could only be assuaged through religion. OK, fine, but that's not a reason, it's a motivation. Sometimes I pressed further, looking for a logical thought pattern, but never got anywhere, oftentimes folks got offended. I even had one forumist tell me, "my faith is not an equation, have a nice day".