The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Re: Originally Posted by enorbet
{...}Evolution does not disprove Creation since that is an unknowable event{...}

Originally Posted by Arcane WOW. So finaly others also wrote this. I was saying this with my own words aswell yet some keep arguing. Real quest for truth can and can not include Deity depending on findings.

If you agree it is unknowable then why behave as if it has any meaning or importance at all?....Or, are you of the mindset that Plato's Right Opinion is of equal value (let alone a reliable, viable foundation for knowledge) to establish a set oif values and understanding?

Originally Posted by hazel That's a fascinating article. But the fact that you use the word "creation" in connection with it shows a basic confusion, which I have often noticed in both anti-evolution fundamentalists (who often call themselves creationists) and militant atheists like you. Creation is a belief about the origin of the universe, not its origin in time, but its logical origin, its reason for existing at all. Evolution is a theory about events within the existing universe, as is Mr England's theory concerning the origin of life. The contents and history of the universe are the proper province of science, but science can never tell us why the universe exists, why there is anything rather than nothing. If there was a God who created the universe and intended it to evolve living creatures, wouldn't He have created a universe that would do so spontaneously, rather than having to fiddle about inserting events by hand? That's the action of an incompetent programmer, not a God. Would it surprise you to know that most well-educated Christians are as fed up with the "God of the gaps" as you are? First, as you point out, the gaps always get filled in eventually so a God like that isn't much use for evangelism. And secondly, as I have already pointed out, such a God is not a fit object of worship for any intelligent person. The true God isn't in the gaps. He's outside the frame. He's the reason the universe exists, not a cause of natural events within it. He is Shakespeare to the world of Hamlet. Hamlet may have had all kinds of theories about his father's death, but they would have told him nothing about Shakespeare unless he already believed in him.

Hello again, hazel...

I know this was in response to Okie but I'd like to comment since I view your response as an exemplary, clear and concise exposition of the most basic issues of this thread, coming from a thoughtful Believer's POV.

It has become increasing popular and quite interesting since digital video games have become so very realistic and immersive to speculate that the nature of our existence could be much like Hamlet's ie living in a fictional simulation. I have commented about and linked one of many applications of evidence that falsify that concept. However, it really doesn't matter, does it? It is impossible for Hamlet to know about Shakespeare unless Shakespeare chose to write that in to the narrative, the simulation, and Hamlet has no need, no use of such information anymore than he needs to resurrect poor Yorick. He only needs what information he can gather to deal with his conflicts with his Mother and her murderous brother of her late husband and Hamlet's Father, and possibly, if he can survive said conflict (which of course Shakespeare deems that he doesn't) how he may possibly fit into the fate of this simulated Denmark. Whether Shakespeare exists or doesn't also doesn't matter to Hamlet since his condition is entirely binary - If he exists so does hamlet but exactly as Shakespeare prescribes, or if he doesn't, neither does Hamlet.

We only know we were born into a world we did not create and have limited powers over how our life plays out, but it does seem that while there are other forces, including "mere chance", that can and do have profound effects on the course of our lives, we do have some power to write our own stories, unlike Hamlet. Now someone may consider that makes sense since Hamlet's simulation was "programmed" by a human, while our Universe, if a simulation with a Creator, was programed by someone with orders of magnitude more power than Shakespeare or any man.

It seems to me the bottom line is, at least until such time if ever, we can "see the Big Picture" and if that can possibly have any value to us, whether we are in a created simulation or not does not or should not have any more value to us that Hamlet's knowing about Shakespeare. We each more likely should spend little time and effort concerning ourselves with such issues outside of our existence and focus on making the most of what we know and what affects ours and our fellow "playmates" lives and functions within that context, yes?

Recently a pair of LDS evangelists appeared at my door and after a pleasant introduction they asked me the inevitable question, "What do you think happens to you when you die?" I responded that I have no evidence that anything does, that it is most likely I am simply done, my atoms and associated energies will lose all coherence in any way that describes or constitutes Me. They said that sounded very sad so I asked while sweeping my hand across the beautiful rural view of trees, grass and sky, "What? Isn't this enough for you? Would you prefer to be a rock?" Hopefully I later made it clear that from the POV of limited existence shouldn't make one despondent, but instead should make one ecstatic at the gift of Life, regardless if by chance or design, and it's limitation only increasing the urgency to make the best of that.

I am not Hamlet. I have far more and better choices than simply "to be or not to be" since "not to be" will happen no matter what I do. How I live is what matters most to me, not how long or how I got here.

It's ironic that the Creator's created the Creator but in the long run we'll all individually see, however can never individually learn.

Don't fear eternity, it doesn't exist for us!

It sucks for those born into the heaven/hell-cults(1) rather than the reincarnation ones... their "god(1)" will eventually stab Einstein in the eye after hearing about relativity for the zillionth*** time!


I drove from Milwaukee to New York yesterday. Guess how many stupid billboard$* I saw, in the name of religion,,, stating we should take the 7 billion people on Earth and multiply like rabbits‽

Originally Posted by enorbet If you agree it is unknowable then why behave as if it has any meaning or importance at all?{...}

Because the more we know the better our lives become and more options we can get(analogy is this simulation software like ThePowderToy the more can do in it the more results can get with it). That is the point of pursuit of truth. Otherwise it is religion. Let me ask you question: Do you think our computers and each LQ poster uses different electricity etc.? It all starts with idea then over time builds on it. In result we got computers and this website aswell. Chakras make sense and brains kinda work as computers.

Originally Posted by jamison20000e It's ironic that the Creator's created the Creator but in the long run we'll all individually see, however can never individually learn. Don't fear eternity, it doesn't exist for us!

It is also ironic that internet is full of articles, even wiki(a)pedias which are monitored by professionals, and before internet libraries with books, about all kind of deities..yet when discussing them it is ignored. Even hardcore scientists believe in Creator not just softcore religious people. And yes can also learn individually, IF introduced to learning material and provided school.

What if it does exist? And caution is not fear. You wrote that some can create humans so if there would be biorobotic factory like in TV show HUMANS then would the same analogy apply and would hide specific data from them to not cause riots?

Originally Posted by jamison20000e {...}I drove from Milwaukee to New York yesterday. Guess how many stupid billboard$* I saw, in the name of religion,,, stating we should take the 7 billion people on Earth and multiply like rabbits‽

Agree but that is not fault of religion but stupidity..just like some waste new phones and other stuff, that did not came easily, to make youtube videos with destruction or experiments in the name of science..

Originally Posted by Arcane Because the more we know the better our lives become and more options we can get(analogy is this simulation software like ThePowderToy the more can do in it the more results can get with it). That is the point of pursuit of truth. Otherwise it is religion. Let me ask you question: Do you think our computers and each LQ poster uses different electricity etc.? It all starts with idea then over time builds on it. In result we got computers and this website aswell. Chakras make sense and brains kinda work as computers.

It is by definition literally impossible to know the unknowable. Powder Toy isn't even remotely analogous to what you stated since it has a very well-defined set of rules that must be applied. It is sort of like typing the DOS command "deltree" in Linux - Nothing happens no matter how many times you enter it or alter the spelling.

As for "different electricity" of course we do. We use different electrons and in some countries at different voltages and frequencies. Some ideas are fruitful but not all are and critical thinking requires tossing out that which you know with a reasonable level of certainty to be false, like realizing typing "deltree" is useless in Linux. Chakras made sense to ancient people who had yet to discover their explanation is false and to be discarded. Assuming they are an accurate description of reality is as willfully wrong as assuming the Sun revolves around the Earth.

Originally Posted by Arcane It is also ironic that internet is full of articles, even wiki(a)pedias which are monitored by professionals, and before internet libraries with books, about all kind of deities..yet when discussing them it is ignored. Even hardcore scientists believe in Creator not just softcore religious people. And yes can also learn individually, IF introduced to learning material and provided school.

It might actually be ironic if such articles were labeled "Non Fiction" or "Applied Science" or even "Scientific Theory" but they are not and for good reason. That anyone else or a number of individuals share a speculative notion with you is proof of nothing. If 20 people were called to the witness stand and claimed they saw you murder someone in a dream, should you not only be convicted but go happily off to prison believing that somehow the 20 people that actually saw you and spoke with you at that family reunion that took place the same time as the murder were somehow mistaken and the door prize you brought home from it was just some quirky anomaly, too? Oh wait... I know... aliens replicated you to attend the reunion, toyed with your chakras and programmed you to murder the victim and replaced your memory and planted the prize. Yeah... that's it.

C'mon Arcane. do you really believe the things you write or are you just trolling now for a giggle?

Arcane's post seemed leavellhead-ished compared to most of mine, accepting that every* is changing...

try Scientology‽

So; just like believing in religions fairy tales (and others) makes you gullible,,, so-too simply listening to percents of humanity—as WE chang it.&!

We're all atheist, just some are better at it believing in no "god" &c. rather than all the other's!

Originally Posted by jamison20000e We're all atheist, just some are better at it believing in no "god" &c. rather than all the other's!

I don't agree with that on any level. First off there is a vast difference in "believing in no God" considering the question unresolvable... reductio ad absurdum. The underlying principle or question begged is like the song...

Originally Posted by Stevie Wonder - Superstition (paraphrased) Thirteen-months-old baby broke the lookin' glass Seven years of bad luck, the good things in your past Do you believe in things that you can't understand?

Originally Posted by enorbet First off there is a vast difference in "believing in no God" considering the question unresolvable... reductio ad absurdum.

It doesn't need to be a 100% resolvable. It's simply about the proposition of p, where p means theist (knowing god exist) and -p means atheist (knowing god doesn't exist). While both need a "burden of proof", it doesn't matter whether you are correct or not. If you're showing arguments for either (wrong or right), that is _your_ "burden of proof" (or why Huxley added agnostic in the mix as he considered both absurd).

Originally Posted by enorbet {...}C'mon Arcane. do you really believe the things you write or are you just trolling now for a giggle?

Yes i believe in things i write but No i do not have blind belief what i write is self-proof by itself cause it is wiki(a) and other kind material made by other people who also make trial&error but i try to make sense out of maybes. This is whole point of such discussions.

Originally Posted by jens ..."While both need a "burden of proof"...

the science of evolution and biology has disproved the bible creation story, it was not the intention of of science to disprove the bible's creation story, science is always in search of the truth, the truth about evolution and biology and while researching those topics disproving the creation story of the bible was just a side effect from discovering the truth.


it is a proven fact that evolution has disproved the creation myth of the bible, which means Adam & Eve never existed, which means Eve did not eat of the forbidden fruit which means NO "original sin" which means jesus christ never existed to be crucified for your fictional sins, its all a myth used as scam.

the bible is just a collection of plagiarized myth, brutally primitive laws, and thousands of outright lies.

it all boils down to these three statements
god is a myth, the bible is fiction and religion is bullshit

Originally Posted by Okie the science of evolution and biology has disproved the bible creation story, it was not the intention of of science to disprove the bible's creation story, science is always in search of the truth, the truth about evolution and biology and while researching those topics disproving the creation story of the bible was just a side effect from discovering the truth. it is a proven fact that evolution has disproved the creation myth of the bible, which means Adam & Eve never existed, which means Eve did not eat of the forbidden fruit which means NO "original sin" which means jesus christ never existed to be crucified for your fictional sins, its all a myth used as scam. the bible is just a collection of plagiarized myth, brutally primitive laws, and thousands of outright lies. it all boils down to these three statements god is a myth, the bible is fiction and religion is bullshit

I politely disagree (and do correct me if I'm wrong).

First of all, from an academical pov, nothing is ever proven (hence theorie). While science can easily disprove "the creation myth" (based on facts), non of that counts as proof for "-p" as it's really just a proposition for p (unless you think only two options are possible ... and that's just silly).

Secondly, I can be an athiest towards "stupid" religions while still being agnostic towards deity (global theism*).

*how do you define a deity?

Originally Posted by jens I politely disagree

yeah, you are wrong, there is no god, there never was an adam & eve, humans are hominids which is of the great ape family, thats right your closest living relative that is not human is the chimpanzee, and if the bible is wrong about where we came from why trust it for anything else?, religion is the oldest troll-bait in the history of civilization

Originally Posted by Okie yeah, you are wrong, there is no god, there never was an adam & eve, humans are hominids which is of the great ape family, thats right your closest living relative that is not human is the chimpanzee, and if the bible is wrong about where we came from why trust it for anything else?, religion is the oldest troll-bait in the history of civilization

Ehrr ... How does that make me wrong? (I'm not even religious).
Is it because I'm using the correct terminology (unlike so-called internet heroes like Aron Ra and other people who don't understand anything about philosophy)?