What is the best.......

[DisAsTerBot]

religion is the business that evolved from spirituality

[Yonivore]

I could similarly believe that there are 40 million ice cream cones orbiting alpha centauri,...

Well, you could apply the laws of physics to build a compelling case that there are, in fact, 0 ice cream cones orbiting Alpha Centauri but, can you similarly apply those same laws to building a compelling argument of their own origin?

We have physical evidence to help us theorize about how the universe progressed from a point in time but, nothing to tell us what existed or occurred before that point.

If I understand correctly, there are some proponents of string theory who say we're just moving through a infinite number of realities; that every conceivable permutation of our past exists, as well as every conceivable permutation of our future and that we're propelled through these realities by simple variations or events that occur by chance or choice.

Let me re-phrase that; I think the theory says that every conceivable permutation of the past, present, and future exists and that we are only aware of one while all the other past, presents, and futures continue to exists simultaneously so as to say, there are an infinite number of Yonivores moving through the infinite permutations of the present and future while an infinite number of Yonivores are similarly represented in the infinite number of pasts.

That still doesn't sound to much different, to me, than John Calvin's theory of predestination.

So, my two principal questions remain, from where does matter originate and what defined the laws of physics (many of which we've yet to understand).

[Juggity]

Well, you could apply the laws of physics to build a compelling case that there are, in fact, 0 ice cream cones orbiting Alpha Centauri but, can you similarly apply those same laws to building a compelling argument of their own origin?

We have physical evidence to help us theorize about how the universe progressed from a point in time but, nothing to tell us what existed or occurred before that point.

If I understand correctly, there are some proponents of string theory who say we're just moving through a infinite number of realities; that every conceivable permutation of our past exists, as well as every conceivable permutation of our future and that we're propelled through these realities by simple variations or events that occur by chance or choice.

That doesn't sound to much different, to me, than John Calvin's theory of predestination.

So, my two principal questions remain, from where does matter originate and what defined the laws of physics (many of which we've yet to understand).

Ice cream cones are almost certainly too small to detect with our current instrumentation in the gravitational "wobble" of other stars, so the allegation that 40 million of them might be orbiting a star as distant as alpha centauri is nearly impossible to disprove at the moment. That doesn't mean I should go on believing by default that the ice cream cones are there. Some day, we might find a way to conclusively prove that there aren't any. But in the mean time, shouldn't we apply the rules we know to be true from the observations we have actually made in order to hypothesize that there aren't, in fact, any ice cream cones?

I agree with you that the questions of where matter originates and what defines the laws of physics are central to our understanding of the universe, and I definitely agree that we don't understand either in any serious capacity at the current time. Nonetheless, I don't think it's appropriate to assume that any one faith, Scientology, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, adequately explains either question better than science might one day explain it. I can't countenance the fact that locking oneself into a particular religion shuts off most avenues of alternative possibility and answers any inquiry with a nearly unquestionable and immutable "truth" — especially when no observable evidence is presented to support this immutable viewpoint.

[Yonivore]

Ice cream cones are almost certainly too small to detect with our current instrumentation in the gravitational "wobble" of other stars, so the allegation that 40 million of them might be orbiting a star as distant as alpha centauri is nearly impossible to disprove at the moment. That doesn't mean I should go on believing by default that the ice cream cones are there. Some day, we might find a way to conclusively prove that there aren't any. But in the mean time, shouldn't we apply the rules we know to be true from the observations we have actually made in order to hypothesize that there aren't, in fact, any ice cream cones?

I think that's what I said.

I agree with you that the questions of where matter originates and what defines the laws of physics are central to our understanding of the universe, and I definitely agree that we don't understand either in any serious capacity at the current time. Nonetheless, I don't think it's appropriate to assume that any one faith, Scientology, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, adequately explains either question better than science might one day explain it. I can't countenance the fact that locking oneself into a particular religion shuts off most avenues of alternative possibility and answers any inquiry with a nearly unquestionable and immutable "truth" — especially when no observable evidence is presented to support this immutable viewpoint.

I certainly wasn't suggesting it was an "either/or" proposition; in fact, many scientists -- astrophysicists and quantum physicists included -- have a belief in a higher being, creator, or God, if you will.

And, as for me, I think all religions fall short of "adequately" explaining either question. But, it is interesting that many cultures, around the world, have similar creation stories without ever having -- to our knowledge -- interacted beforehand.

I'm sure I'm, once again, being imprecise with the words here but, don't biologists hold the premise that life's singular purpose is to perpetuate itself? Can it be creation, itself, has a purpose and -- if so -- that it's purpose was defined beforehand?

[Winehole23]

I certainly wasn't suggesting it was an "either/or" proposition; in fact, many scientists -- astrophysicists and quantum physicists included -- have a belief in a higher being, creator, or God, if you will.

And, as for me, I think all religions fall short of "adequately" explaining either question. But, it is interesting that many cultures, around the world, have similar creation stories without ever having -- to our knowledge -- interacted beforehand.

I'm sure I'm, once again, being imprecise with the words here but, don't biologists hold the premise that life's singular purpose is to perpetuate itself? Can it be creation, itself, has a purpose and -- if so -- that it's purpose was defined beforehand?

choppier than cole slaw. crazy comma splices and parentheticals, Yo.

[Yonivore]

choppier than cole slaw. crazy comma splices and parentheticals, Yo.

Stream of consciousness is sometimes sloppy, Yo.

[SnakeBoy]

the emboldened is untrue. The position of the catholic church is that they cannot judge gods will so while they can speculate, they cannot say any person will or has gone to . Also, from the church's POV, you are a catholic anyway. ITHO all protestants are protesting catholics. You may reject that, but like I said, even if what you said was true (about not being the right kind of christian), from the POV of catholics, you are the right kind of christian... with some questions.

BTW, the italicized is also true for catholics.

I don't think you interpreted my post correctly.

If you listen to the catholic church...direct quote from Vatican II

What untrue about the quote from the church?

Me not being the "right kind of christian" was in reference to some of the extreme evangelicals not the catholic church.

[Blake]

And, as for me, I think all religions fall short of "adequately" explaining either question.

Since atheism does not end with ”it must be supernatural”, it remains #1.

But, it is interesting that many cultures, around the world, have similar creation stories without ever having -- to our knowledge -- interacted beforehand.

humans falling for other humans' fables in unsurprising.

I'm sure I'm, once again, being imprecise with the words here but, don't biologists hold the premise that life's singular purpose is to perpetuate itself?

Purpose =! Ability

Can it be creation, itself, has a purpose and -- if so -- that it's purpose was defined beforehand?

Until it's proven, it's just speculation that has no business being validated in the public domain.

[LnGrrrR]

really, if you agree with Mouse on any subject, you should probably rethink your stance

[Drachen]

I don't think you interpreted my post correctly.



What untrue about the quote from the church?

Me not being the "right kind of christian" was in reference to some of the extreme evangelicals not the catholic church.

Oh the way it was worded I saw it as "the wrong kind of christians go to if you listen to the catholic church" thereby implying that the Catholic church is saying everyone else goes to . That confused me because a lot of others seem to think that catholics are going to (jack chick tracts!). I am guessing now that this was the point you were trying to make

[SnakeBoy]

Since atheism does not end with ”it must be supernatural”, it remains #1.

Atheism relies on science, as of now the scientific veiw of the creation of life or macroevolution ends with "then some magic stuff happened".

[SnakeBoy]

Oh the way it was worded I saw it as "the wrong kind of christians go to if you listen to the catholic church" thereby implying that the Catholic church is saying everyone else goes to . That confused me because a lot of others seem to think that catholics are going to (jack chick tracts!). I am guessing now that this was the point you were trying to make

Yeah I was making basically the same point you did.

[baseline bum]

It always makes me laugh when the religious answer is we don't/can't know what happened, so here's what happened.

[Yonivore]

Since atheism does not end with ”it must be supernatural”, it remains #1.

I didn't suggest the answer was supernatural.

humans falling for other humans' fables in unsurprising.

I find the agreement, among the cultures, more compelling than the stories themselves. You must have missed the part of the sentence were some of these cultures arrived at similar creation stories without benefit of "falling for other humans' fable" to be the excuse.

Purpose =! Ability

No, Purpose = Purpose.

Until it's proven, it's just speculation that has no business being validated in the public domain.

Then you should treat all theory the same.

[Drachen]

Atheism relies on science, as of now the scientific veiw of the creation of life or macroevolution ends with "then some magic stuff happened".

No, it always ends with "we can only explain to here at this point in our understanding, here is what we think could happen but until we have a way of proving that, it is just a hypothesis. You can, however, bet that we will continue our quest for knowledge to prove (or disprove) our hypothesis in such a way that others will be able to get the same results as we did. Once we have that, our progeny will continue to attempt to poke holes in our approach and holes will likely be poked, but this is ok, because each refinement only increases our understanding of exactly what happened."

I understand that the above is longer and more complex than "god did it" but I feel that it is a superior approach. You may disagree.

[SnakeBoy]

I understand that the above is longer and more complex than "god did it" but I feel that it is a superior approach. You may disagree.

No I don't actually. Attempting to understand the origins of life, how we came to be, etc. doesn't pose any conflict with religion for me. Maybe for those who think God is a little old man who lives on a cloud and has a magic wand it does.

But when an atheist makes a statement such as...

Until it's proven, it's just speculation that has no business being validated in the public domain.

it seems worthwhile to point out that not all his beliefs have been proven.

[Blake]

Atheism relies on science, as of now the scientific veiw of the creation of life or macroevolution ends with "then some magic stuff happened".

it doesn't end with ”an invisible magician made some magic stuff happen”

Which is what this is ultimately about.

[LnGrrrR]

Atheism relies on science, as of now the scientific veiw of the creation of life or macroevolution ends with "then some magic stuff happened".

I wouldn't say atheism necessarily relies on science, but I do think it'd be hard to posit a non-creation based origin without some sort of science involved.

Of course, saying "It's always been there" is an option. It's at least as scientific as "God's always been there".

[LnGrrrR]

I find the agreement, among the cultures, more compelling than the stories themselves. You must have missed the part of the sentence were some of these cultures arrived at similar creation stories without benefit of "falling for other humans' fable" to be the excuse.

Every culture ends up questioning where they come from, and end up coming with creation myths. It shouldn't be surprising that nearly all of them come up with some form of creator, whether that's a god/s or some other supernatural en y.

In the same vein, cultures have used god/s as explanation for things they couldn't understand, such as weather, disease, emotions, etc etc.

[Blake]

I didn't suggest the answer was supernatural.

I didn't really suggest you suggested that.

You made a point that further confirmed my opinion.

I find the agreement, among the cultures, more compelling than the stories themselves. You must have missed the part of the sentence were some of these cultures arrived at similar creation stories without benefit of "falling for other humans' fable" to be the excuse.

If the agreement across all cultures was identical, then it might be compelling.

As it is, it's not compelling to most anyone that's done any kind of base reading on ancient world history.

No, Purpose = Purpose.

You conflated purpose and ability.

I've never seen a non ID hack say that life has purpose of any kind.

Even the definition of life is up for debate.

Then you should treat all theory the same.

I do.

[Wild Cobra]

spirituality does not equal religion

I didn't say that now, did I.

[Blake]

But when an atheist makes a statement such as...



it seems worthwhile to point out that not all his beliefs have been proven.

atheism is a lack of belief.

getting back to the op though, please explain why something like Christianity for example is better for society than atheism.

[Yonivore]

atheism is a lack of belief.

That's not exactly true for the atheists that affirmatively declare God does not exist.

That's not an absence of belief.

[SnakeBoy]

atheism is a lack of belief.

Oh ok, so you lack belief in the scientific theories of the creation of life and evolution and think that they have no business being validated in the public domain until fully proven.

getting back to the op though, please explain why something like Christianity for example is better for society than atheism.

I don't recall saying it was.

[LnGrrrR]

That's not exactly true for the atheists that affirmatively declare God does not exist.

That's not an absence of belief.

Technically speaking, atheism is strictly a lack of belief. A GNOSTIC atheist would say that their lack of belief is informed because of a certainty of the lack of god/s. An agnostic atheist (like myself) would say they lack belief, but don't know whether or not God exists.

Most gnostic atheists don't claim to be gnostic because of belief though; many will logically deconstruct any God you happen to bring up and try to show that logically your God is impossible.