Religion. The evolution, creation and everything in between megathread

[Retardobot]

God doesn't cure people, doctors who spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on their education and sacrifice a good portion of their life in order to study medicine, cure people. These people will often work with Pharmaceutical companies who produce drugs that are contributed to curing cancer. Drugs are also the tools of the devil and shunned by a Christian based religion.

The devil, for some reason gets a kick out of keeping people alive.

It appears that the concept of the devil does more for the human race than the concept of God. Which is funny, because the concept of God is what illustrates the tyranny of the devil.

Wait, is God the Devil?

[Spoonguard]

God doesn't cure people, doctors who spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on their education and sacrifice a good portion of their life in order to study medicine, cure people. These people will often work with Pharmaceutical companies who produce drugs that are contributed to curing cancer. Drugs are also the tools of the devil and shunned by a Christian based religion.

The devil, for some reason gets a kick out of keeping people alive.

It appears that the concept of the devil does more for the human race than the concept of God. Which is funny, because the concept of God is what illustrates the tyranny of the devil.

Wait, is God the Devil?

Maybe the Devil and all his works are the will of god? He is supposed to be omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent after all.

Or maybe Good/Evil and Sin/Virtue are constructs that don't exist outside our prejudices.

[Ngati_Grim]

nice spoonguard nice! You're a very interesting guy  Didn't realise this was a thread where people try to prove they know more than the other! Good job!

I've been quiet because the Spoon has said what I felt like saying and thus (therefore?) it would have been repetitive. Language is a wonderful tool and we should celebrate those with the cerebrality (hah!)to use words appropriately, even multisyllabic words.

You mentioned that humans/creatures have free will, can choose what they want to do, but I doubt if the pig in the factory (where your bacon may come from) has free will and basically, this argument as I see it is an excuse to make up for the obvious absence of God. We should not have dominion over the animals and fowl and fish etc as we are part of the same lineage. See my (spoilered) post in the recent random images. It's all about blind obeisance to those in authority, but it doesn't work for me.

We were created in God's image, yes? Do you believe that?

I'll let you answer that before I continue.

Finally though, I see the Abrahamic religions as the Axis of Evil. There is a war for our minds. It is being waged by the forces for rationality and the forces for superstition.
That's how I percieve it.

[simcore]

After 296 pages, I can summarise by concluding that we agree to disagree.

[Spoonguard]

After 296 pages, I can summarise by concluding that we agree to disagree.

I disagree, you don't get to do that. What are you, god or something? Besides, it's 148 pages....

Finally though, I see the Abrahamic religions as the Axis of Evil. There is a war for our minds. It is being waged by the forces for rationality and the forces for superstition.
That's how I percieve it.

Grim, you are fighting a battle that cannot be won. Purging the world of Abraham's belief would have very little effect on the superstitions of the world. Every field of human knowledge is afflicted by varying degrees of superstition, from Physics to Accounting. Sure, Abrahamic Monothesism's "God's Chosen People" motif has made it the most virulent superstition in the world, but it isn't unique. I have said this before in this very thread (I think) so I apologise if I am repeating myself.

We should aim to free the organising of our societies from any organised religion and superstitions, not just theism. Trying to relieve theists of their faith is counter-productive, people need to find some sort of comfort in this grotesque universe. But at no point should any of us be so arrogant to assume, for example, that our "personal relationship with Jesus Christ" should apply to anybody else.

Who_Ate_My_Rice , Since you seem incapable of answering my question directly I guess I will have to answer it for you. Maybe it was my intention after all; you are not completely wrong in accusing me of Sophism! I find it difficult to consider you a reasonable person when you say that you think sin and virtue should be governed by reason, not superstition, and then say without (superstitious) faith we can find no salvation in our virtue. Surely that would not matter to a being worthy of my devotion.

And anyway, if I should find myself in "Heaven" I very much suspect it will be a punishment, as heaven is going to be filled by most accounts with insufferably smug, brittle minded winners of idiotic wagers of faith. Hell is where all the interesting people are going from what I hear. How am I to know what everlasting happiness is without some suffering, anyway? Better to Masturbate in Hell than to Suck Dick in Heaven.

[Ngati_Grim]

You're quite correct. I shouldn't have limited it to just the Abrahamic Religions.....something about the squeaky wheel...

[Spoonguard]

You're quite correct. I shouldn't have limited it to just the Abrahamic Religions.....something about the squeaky wheel...

Man, once you are finished with superstitions can you come work on my fallacies? They have been getting much worse of late....

[Ngati_Grim]

I'm not much good with phallusies. I find them real pricks to work with.

[Spoonguard]

I'm not much good with phallusies. I find them real pricks to work with.

Mines just a little prick though!

[Scunner]

I feel everyone should know I have recently joined The Church of Harold.

[Ngati_Grim]

I'm not much good with phallusies. I find them real pricks to work with.

Mines just a little prick though!

A "little prick thought" was much more subtle, especially when encountering fallacies

[Blob_ZPS]

Grim, you are fighting a battle that cannot be won. Purging the world of Abraham's belief would have very little effect on the superstitions of the world. Every field of human knowledge is afflicted by varying degrees of superstition, from Physics to Accounting. Sure, Abrahamic Monothesism's "God's Chosen People" motif has made it the most virulent superstition in the world, but it isn't unique. I have said this before in this very thread (I think) so I apologise if I am repeating myself.

Physics is science, based on EVIDENCE not superstition.

As far as some epic battle is concerned, eventually science will be able to explain anything and everything and there wont be room for pseudoscience, that being said religions could still exist on the premise that they are based on either fact, or do not deny the fact that they are fiction.

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

Physics is science, based on EVIDENCE not superstition.

As far as some epic battle is concerned, eventually science will be able to explain anything and everything and there wont be room for pseudoscience, that being said religions could still exist on the premise that they are based on either fact, or do not deny the fact that they are fiction.

Incorrect, science will never be able to explain everything, that would be making an assumption that the universe only contains a limited number of things to be explained, which is absurd.

[Dr Woomanchu]

If the universe is finite, then the number of things there are to be explained must also be finite, even if the number is obscenely large.

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

If the universe is finite, then the number of things there are to be explained must also be finite, even if the number is obscenely large.

But then you would need to explain why the universe is finite, and the possibility of other universe.

However much we learn, we will also keeping learning that there is so much more we don't understand.

[Blob_ZPS]

Physics is science, based on EVIDENCE not superstition.

As far as some epic battle is concerned, eventually science will be able to explain anything and everything and there wont be room for pseudoscience, that being said religions could still exist on the premise that they are based on either fact, or do not deny the fact that they are fiction.

Incorrect, science will never be able to explain everything, that would be making an assumption that the universe only contains a limited number of things to be explained, which is absurd.

If the universe is finite, then the number of things there are to be explained must also be finite, even if the number is obscenely large.

Making absurd claims like that sounds more like religious babble to me.

Thats absurd, just because there is a really really big number of things in the universe doesnt mean its infinite.
Energy is conserved (at least on large timescales) => there will be the same amount of energy in the universe in 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 years as there is now => if we discover more and more even if its just 1 atom per year, eventually we will discover everything.

And besides, science explaining everything does not even mean you have to observe every single planet/atom/nucleus/quark it merely means that there are no physical phenomena you cannot explain, no theory is incomplete, and given some problems you will always have a solution and know exactly how is works/what is happening etc....

Based off particle indistinguishability and the fact that the laws of physics dont change (by that i mean gravity wont push us away from the earth tomorrow, rather than we will have a different theory tomorrow) you can assume that once you have fully understand all the forces, interactions, particles, whatever... you will be able to understand their future behaviours. If you understand what im trying to say.





But the main problem with your assertion is energy conservation.

[Spoonguard]

If the universe is finite, then the number of things there are to be explained must also be finite, even if the number is obscenely large.

To build a complete model of the universe would take more energy the universe contains.

Whoever can successfully construct such a model is effectively god anyway.

Physics is science, based on EVIDENCE not superstition.

I didn't say it wasn't empirical science, I just said it cannot be free of all superstition.

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

If the universe is finite, then the number of things there are to be explained must also be finite, even if the number is obscenely large.

To build a complete model of the universe would take more energy the universe contains.

Whoever can successfully construct such a model is effectively god anyway.

Indeed, I agree.

[Blob_ZPS]

To build a complete model of the universe would take more energy the universe contains.

Rofl although that is true i think you miss the point of the argument, in fact you are equivocating the fact that we are saying that the universe can be explained by science eventually, ie. that there wont be anything unexplainable, not that we will be able to predict anything and everything that is ever going to happen in the future, even though no matter what happened we would still be able to explain it using existing theories if they were complete.
Science would still be able to explain and understand everything, it just would not be able to predict whats going to happen in the future using such a "model" which is absurd anyway seeing as the universe is probabilistic rather than deterministic.

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

To build a complete model of the universe would take more energy the universe contains.

Rofl although that is true i think you miss the point of the argument, in fact you are equivocating the fact that we are saying that the universe can be explained by science eventually, ie. that there wont be anything unexplainable, not that we will be able to predict anything and everything that is ever going to happen in the future, even though no matter what happened we would still be able to explain it using existing theories if they were complete.
Science would still be able to explain and understand everything, it just would not be able to predict whats going to happen in the future using such a "model" which is absurd anyway seeing as the universe is probabilistic rather than deterministic.

No, he explained it perfectly.

Science can not explain everything about the universe (and everything else) where science itself is constricted by the laws of the universe itself.

It's arrogant to think that our primitive understand of the universe (and it is indeed primitive, we don't even know what 96% of the universe is made out of) is enough to justify what your saying.

[Blob_ZPS]

To build a complete model of the universe would take more energy the universe contains.

Rofl although that is true i think you miss the point of the argument, in fact you are equivocating the fact that we are saying that the universe can be explained by science eventually, ie. that there wont be anything unexplainable, not that we will be able to predict anything and everything that is ever going to happen in the future, even though no matter what happened we would still be able to explain it using existing theories if they were complete.
Science would still be able to explain and understand everything, it just would not be able to predict whats going to happen in the future using such a "model" which is absurd anyway seeing as the universe is probabilistic rather than deterministic.

No, he explained it perfectly.

Science can not explain everything about the universe (and everything else) where science itself is constricted by the laws of the universe itself.

Errr, everything else?
No i think youre missing the definition of universe : everything that exists anywhere.
If something existed somewhere else, its still somewhere ergo its in the universe.

[Spoonguard]

To build a complete model of the universe would take more energy the universe contains.

Rofl although that is true i think you miss the point of the argument, in fact you are equivocating the fact that we are saying that the universe can be explained by science eventually, ie. that there wont be anything unexplainable, not that we will be able to predict anything and everything that is ever going to happen in the future, even though no matter what happened we would still be able to explain it using existing theories if they were complete.
Science would still be able to explain and understand everything, it just would not be able to predict whats going to happen in the future using such a "model" which is absurd anyway seeing as the universe is probabilistic rather than deterministic.

There will always be edge cases that behave so far outside any model that the only way to explain their behaviour is a complete simulation of the entire universe.

[Blob_ZPS]

To build a complete model of the universe would take more energy the universe contains.

Rofl although that is true i think you miss the point of the argument, in fact you are equivocating the fact that we are saying that the universe can be explained by science eventually, ie. that there wont be anything unexplainable, not that we will be able to predict anything and everything that is ever going to happen in the future, even though no matter what happened we would still be able to explain it using existing theories if they were complete.
Science would still be able to explain and understand everything, it just would not be able to predict whats going to happen in the future using such a "model" which is absurd anyway seeing as the universe is probabilistic rather than deterministic.

There will always be edge cases that behave so far outside any model that the only way to explain their behaviour is a complete simulation of the entire universe.

Can you give me an example?

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

No, he explained it perfectly.

Science can not explain everything about the universe (and everything else) where science itself is constricted by the laws of the universe itself.

Errr, everything else?
No i think youre missing the definition of universe : everything that exists anywhere.
If something existed somewhere else, its still somewhere ergo its in the universe.

Well, lets make the definition clear then.

Our universe, which started with the Big Bang.

But what about other universes?

[Spoonguard]

Can you give me an example?

Anything beyond the event horizon of a black hole
The properties of objects in areas that are expanding faster than the speed of light
Anything outside your light cone, actually