Strange

I don't see why. Some people would believe their one god was the answer. Otherwise would believe that their many gods were the explanation. Others would say it is just an unanswered question with no need for gods.

People are very different. Some atheists believe in other irrational things and some don't.

From all the comments I have read, even close to the black holes, the effects would be too small to even be noticeable, never mind destructive. For example: http://gizmodo.com/your-questions-about-gravitational-waves-answered-1758269933

Both space and time get stretched and squeezed, so space-time is more accurate.

I think it is fairly obvious that people (not communities) have always had a tendency to believe in something mysterious and "above us". I don't think there was a time when people (in general) were atheistic. Although, given the variety of human nature, there have probably always been atheists alongside the mystics.

Then religion, like any other thought process or idea must be "mentalistic". Seems a fairly pointless question. Is arithmetic mentalistic? Of course. Is science mentalistic? Of course. Is music mentalistic? Of course. Is language mentalistic? Of course. Is religion mentalistic? Of course. Is reality mentalistic? Of course.

It is because you insist on dragging these inherently non-scientific concepts into discussions of science. If you want to discuss your beliefs, do it in the Religion forum. Christ cannot be evidence in the scientific sense.

So, a bad sci-fi story then.

Does anything?

There are solutions to the Einstein Field Equations that describe an "empty" universe. The properties of such a universe can be studied (and compared to ours, for example). So the idea that you need content to define a universe appears to be false.

You don't and it isn't. Don't be silly.

There is the famous example of Duchamp who entered a urinal for an art exhibition. http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/duchamp-fountain-t07573/text-summary Was he taking the, er, piss out of the art establishment? Was he getting us to look at an everyday object in a new way (see also Picasso's "Bull's Head")? Maybe both.

In Windows the Character Map tool is probably the easiest way of doing this (on an occasional basis).

So, as the data shows this is not the case, are you now willing to admit that you have lost that bet? Or are you going to carry on with the dishonest tactic of throwing more random claims around in the hope people will forget what the original point was?

Citation needed. Modern, in this context, means technology developed in the last few centuries. In the context of scientific developments, it is. Please provide some evidence to support this claim. Tell that to all the people who have been cured by modern antibiotics, modern surgical techniques, cures for cancer, etc. If you are going to carry on making up lies to defend your position, then it is not very surprising if your threads keep getting closed. I dismissed it, as I said, because it is not science. I never mentioned ancient coins or civilization. And science does not exclude history. That is another two Strawman arguments.

This is not very meaningful. (Putting it very politely.) We can (and do) predict the motions of the planets and so we know where the sun will be in 24 hours. As there is no evidence that the universe will end in the next 24 hours, that suggestion has nothing to do with science.

Plumbing is a very ancient technology, so it doesn't seem relevant as a counter example. Ah, the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Well done. And, as I never mentioned "quack doctors" you get a free Strawman fallacy. Congratulations. Some herbal remedies work (to some extent) and most don't. Some are positively dangerous. The way we know which ones work and which don't is, as you say through "objective long-term studies and observation", in other words: science. As someone said, "you know what they call alternative medicine that works? Medicine".

You are not discussing in scientific terms when you admit that the thing you are discussing cannot be proved or disproved.

That is rather obvious. That is quite plainly wrong. All modern technology, from the computer you are using, to cures for cancer, to your favourite display technology, arise from rigorous application of the scientific process, not from intuition. People have been using intuition for millennia to treat disease, for example. And they were largely unsuccessful. It is only with the advent of the scientific method that great leaps were made in healthcare, agriculture and every other aspect of life.

But you need a pair of universes for every pair of entangled particles.

It often seems that religious people think that rules don't apply to them.

Science relies on more than "free form" observations. It require objective measurements and analysis of data. Something you are skipping over. So, not censored then. Please don't lie. And if it can't be proven, then it has no place on a science forum. Why do you think anyone is bitter? Why are you unable to either (a) provide some evidence for your assertion or (b) admit it was a guess that turned out to be wrong?

This sounds like the Many Worlds interpretation. Is that what you mean?

So are you acknowledging that you were mistaken? The data insists that you are wrong. (There is only one person making unsupported assertions here. You.)

And, again, please provide some evidence to support this claim. Many types of cancer can now be successfully treated so this is clearly wrong. Many can be (largely) prevented by modern medecine. And, again, please provide some evidence to support this claim. Yes, good nutrition is required for health. Bad nutrition can cause disease. But it is not a logical argument to assume that good nutrition can cure disease (when that disease is not caused by nutritional problems). This is an example of the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent