Religion vs. Lifestyle

[Raven]

I don't know, or neither do I care, if there is a god or whatever that is responsible for life and the universe as we know it.

as far as the beginning of the universe and everything within it, i believe the science buffs on the matter. big bang and all that jizz

if there is something up there, it obviously doesn't want to make its existence known to us, so i'm just gonna live on not knowing - and not caring - about it.

[-Cynthia-]

I think it's certainly possible that some divine being(s) created the spark of life that set evolution in motion or whatever, but this doesn't line up with any creation myths as dondon demonstrated. Some sort of god might be behind evolution, but not the God of Abrahamic religions.

Also, I think that Raven's approach is very sensible, if there is some higher power they're not making themselves known despite their omnipotent power. We really know nothing about them, so to assume their 'will' leans one way or another is pure guesswork.

[Blaze The Great]

@ Dondon

The Framework Interpretation explains this fairly well. In much of the Bible, the writers would start off with a comprehensive statement, then later on return back to what they said later and expand upon it in greater detail. It is entirely possible that the creation was not written in a chronological order, but it has a sort of framework, that looks like this.

Day 1 Light, day, night Day 4, sun, moon, stars

Day 2 Sky, water Day 5 Sea creatures, birds

Day 3 Earth Day 6, Animals, man

Day 7 God's day

Now, I won't claim with 100% certainty that this theory is correct, but it seems perfectly plausible. First, the writer, believed to be Moses, made a general statement about each element of the creation, and each statement was a day. Then, later on, he went back and wrote in greater detail. In the first staement, the 'kingdoms' were established, then three days later, the 'kings' were established. Finally, the seventh day was set apart for God himself.

As for your last point.

.what? That makes no sense at all. I was saying that logic applies to the metaphysical, God included. HOWEVER, I certainly would not expect any god written about to behave exactly like a human, especially if said God created the world. What I was saying was, God probably does not act exactly like a human being. An omnipotent, omniscient being is not going to be just like us. That is what I was saying.

EDIT: Also, just as an aside, I'd love to see a religion-based thread NOT turn into a debate regarding the plausibility of a god. This thread was created to discuss religion in your lifestyle, not to say whether or not you think a religion is right. If you feel the need for a thread discussing that, fine by me. But just because it has religion in the title doesn't mean it is a battleground for Christians or some other religious group and atheists to fight upon.

Edited June 10, 2015 by Blaze The Great

[Chiki]

but can one part of one of the many languages around the world be truly comparable to finding the mechanisms, origins, and possibly even purpose of life?

If there's a difference between two kinds of adjectives , it means that they are some mechanisms, to borrow your terminology, in the brain which make them different.

It makes perfect sense, and it fits in with both the Bible and evolutionism.

Just because it fits in doesn't mean that it's not forced. For example, a Nazi could come up with an explanation for the claim that Jews did 9/11 and even make it fit completely with the facts that we know. (Jews paid terrorists to do 9/11, etc.) That doesn't mean his explanation is not forced. He just hates Jews and wants to discredit them, and he's forcing an explanation for that purpose. Instead of the Nazi in that example, I can put you, to provide us with an explanation for the claim that God did evolution.

Edited June 10, 2015 by Chiki

[Baldrick]

EDIT: Also, just as an aside, I'd love to see a religion-based thread NOT turn into a debate regarding the plausibility of a god. This thread was created to discuss religion in your lifestyle, not to say whether or not you think a religion is right. If you feel the need for a thread discussing that, fine by me. But just because it has religion in the title doesn't mean it is a battleground for Christians or some other religious group and atheists to fight upon.

If it had stayed as a sharing of religious beliefs only, it wouldn't have turned into a debate (or any posts trying to make it a debate would be clamped down on by the mods).

But Snowy tried to justify creationism as a scientific theory, and frame science as incompatible with any form of aesthetics. Religion (read: Christianity) muscling in on science's turf is a real problem, especially in the USA, so his willfully spreading misconceptions and other ignorance should not be tolerated.

Edited June 11, 2015 by Baldrick

[dondon151]

The Framework Interpretation explains this fairly well.

no, it doesn't. the framework interpretation is literally the product of some scholars noticing a pattern in how the events of genesis are described (you can only describe 6 events in so many ways) and then claiming that because such a pattern exists, it's an indication of the events being true or agreeing with some scientific understanding of the development of the universe. this doesn't mean anything. it doesn't account for the possibility that the pattern is coincidental. it doesn't consider that the human or humans who created the genesis myth probably chose to use this pattern because it made sense to them (but it obviously doesn't make sense to modern man with an understanding of science).

even were the framework interpretation to be reasonable, it doesn't explain the nonsensical grouping or ordering of elements within each triad, i.e., why sky is paired with water or why land and vegetation come after sky and water when the earth is way more land (i.e., rock) than water. if you were to accept the framework interpretation, you cannot make any reasonable conclusion about the creation of the universe and its subsequent evolutionary path that would agree with our scientific understanding. the framework interpretation cedes all literal interpretation and admits that genesis can only make sense if interpreted figuratively, which is the equivalent of retrofitting the data to meet the hypothesis.

Now, I won't claim with 100% certainty that this theory is correct, but it seems perfectly plausible. First, the writer, believed to be Moses, made a general statement about each element of the creation, and each statement was a day. Then, later on, he went back and wrote in greater detail. In the first staement, the 'kingdoms' were established, then three days later, the 'kings' were established. Finally, the seventh day was set apart for God himself.

the writer makes 3 general statements, then 3 more specific statements > the writer is correct. ???

i write my own creation myth. on day 1, god said, let there be hydrogen. day 2, let there by oxygen. day 3, let there be carbon and nitrogen. day 4, let there be lights in the form of stars. day 5, let there be water. day 6, let there be life.

there's a triad of 3 general > 3 specific, exactly the same as the framework interpretation. is my creation myth correct? of course not; how could it possibly be interpreted to be correct?

it is definitely way more accurate than the genesis creation myth though. i could've been a prophet in a different time.

Edited June 11, 2015 by dondon151

[Blaze The Great]

If it had stayed as a sharing of religious beliefs only, it wouldn't have turned into a debate (or any posts trying to make it a debate would be clamped down on by the mods).

But Snowy tried to justify creationism as a scientific theory, and frame science as incompatible with any form of aesthetics. Religion (read: Christianity) muscling in on science's turf is a real problem, especially in the USA, so his willfully spreading misconceptions and other ignorance can not be tolerated.

Really? Snowy didn't say anything about science and aesthetics being incompatible. He said in a world distilled to the most bare and logical conclusions, culture would be pushed to the side. Because science is the issue in question, it is considered these 'bare and logical conclusions' and so there would be no room for culture.

@ Dondon

...you didn't even read the full quote, did you? I explicitly stated that I'm not sure that this is correct. I don't claim with absolute certainty that Christianity is right, but I do believe it is. If it is a myth, I will find our someday. Besides, you ignored the entire point of the framework interpretation. The point is that they were grouped, not that there were general statements later followed by specific ones. As stated before, this part of Genesis was not necessarily written chronologically, but with a firm of topical grouping. Unless you'd like to claim that you yourself wrote Genesis, then you don't understand the purpose of the sequence the author provided.

[Baldrick]

Really? Snowy didn't say anything about science and aesthetics being incompatible. He said in a world distilled to the most bare and logical conclusions, culture would be pushed to the side. Because science is the issue in question, it is considered these 'bare and logical conclusions' and so there would be no room for culture.

He is misrepresenting science as being about 'bare and logical conclusions'. If anything, it is a way in which one considers the universe, natural phenomena, and society.

He also implies if you care about science, you don't care about culture, which is false.

Your argument for Genesis being scientific is basically "God works in mysterious ways", which is a common cop-out answer used when people can't think of a better explanation. You say dondon doesn't what the author was thinking, which is true, but you talk about how Genesis was written as if you do know what the author was thinking. Are you the author of Genesis?

[eclipse]

If it had stayed as a sharing of religious beliefs only, it wouldn't have turned into a debate (or any posts trying to make it a debate would be clamped down on by the mods).

But Snowy tried to justify creationism as a scientific theory, and frame science as incompatible with any form of aesthetics. Religion (read: Christianity) muscling in on science's turf is a real problem, especially in the USA, so his willfully spreading misconceptions and other ignorance can not be tolerated.

"Can not"? No, it's a choice. Just like I chose not to post until now. My reaction to Snowy's post was to shake my head and move on with life. It's not like SF is the center of theological debate and science, nor will it ever be. I don't think the world will implode if Snowy's assertions are left alone!

As for the ACTUAL topic (not the scientific debate, if you guys are going to argue, AT LEAST answer the damn topic), I'm Christian. My reasons are my own, and will never be announced to the public. My goal is to follow that one passage that said "love your neighbor". And "neighbor" is literally everyone, so truly enacting this is really hard. . .but I think it's worth trying!

Edited June 11, 2015 by eclipse

[dondon151]

As stated before, this part of Genesis was not necessarily written chronologically, but with a firm of topical grouping.

there are two definitions of day: one is a literal 24-hour period, and the other is a period in the past. both describe a period of time.

when one says the "first day," "second day," "third day," etc. in english, no one interprets it to mean anything but the first, second, third, etc. day in chronological order. it does not make sense to, for example, refer to the "first day" in the sense that that day is the most important day unless it also happens to come first in chronological order. there is a potential edge case where i scramble the order of a set of days and write them on a list and number them in sequence; in that case, if i pointed out the first day, it would be rather unambiguous that i'm referring to the day listed as number 1.

so there are several reasons to interpret the days as being in chronological order: first, it's by far the more common interpretation, so if we were to interpret it otherwise, a different method of ordering days must be specified. second, such a method of ordering days is not specified; it's only inferred by apologists who were panicking that science was slowly eating away at the truthfulness of their creation myth. third, the creation myth opens with:

in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

now this unambiguously means the beginning of some period of time, because "beginning" can only refer to a temporal or spacial point of origin. if we are to interpret this as god creating the entire cosmos, there was no spacial point of origin to consider because god had to create it. if we are to interpret this as god creating heaven and earth from something that already existed, it still doesn't make sense to interpret "beginning" as meaning a spacial point of origin. the creation myth thus establishes the expectation that the days are ordered in chronological order, and there's no reason to interpret them as not being in chronological order other than retrospectively covering one's ass and fitting the data to the theory.

Edited June 11, 2015 by dondon151

[Snowy_One]

Wait, I tried to justify creationism as a scientific theory? Huh? Where?

IMO this whole thing is stupid. Slap Dondon on ignore as he's causing most of these problems then sit down and actually talk. I'm surprised I became the center of this debate. I also have no clue what the heck you're even talking about in regards to trying to 'muscle in' on sciences turf. Lastly, as I explained already, science and aesthetics are NOT incompatible. A society that ONLY cares about science and discards any notion of wonder, mocks personal choices as 'unscientific', and sees the world as little more that cause and effect DOES discard aesthetic and culture. They go from being the child watching Star Trek and hoping to see the future to the ass who snarks at every bit of technobabble and that the Enterprise uses bad science before discarding it as 'childish tomfoolery'. Or the person who is unwilling to accept the force as a spiritual, mystical, and/or unknown entity and must find a scientific explanation (Yea. How did THAT one turn out?).

We live in a world of wonder where there is still much to explore. There are many things on Earth alone which we do not understand that aren't even 'spiritual' in nature. But to look at those things and dismiss them as 'unscientific' and not even bother sets back society as a whole; especially when it comes to the future. Science may bring us to it, but it's our imagination and desire to do the unscientific and fantastical that gives us the drive to do so in the first place.

[Baldrick]

Wait, I tried to justify creationism as a scientific theory? Huh? Where?

Here.

I am a Christian, and even a creationist, but I also believe in science and many things most people see as being mutually exclusive to creationism

Creationism is a theory, which is either scientific, or not scientific. If it is not scientific, it has no place in science. You seem to think it does, therefore you are saying it is a scientific theory.

I assume the rest of your post was justifying why you think that way.

As for "believing" in science... it's true whether or not you believe in it. Science is not a religion, science does not require your faith. Putting science in the same category as religion, saying that they may "both be wrong" shows you do not understand what science is.

I'm surprised I became the center of this debate. I also have no clue what the heck you're even talking about in regards to trying to 'muscle in' on sciences turf.

You really have no idea about the controversy between creationism and science?

A society that ONLY cares about science

How does that follow from what Cynthia said? She questioned why should we cling to the myth of the Bible.

Why do you assume everyone who does not believe in the Bible only cares about science?

[Magical CC]

Creationism is a religious theory. It tries to prove fantasy stuff using the lack of knowledge of humanity about the world, it exploits the limited progression of knowledge acquiring of humanity instead of expanding it. It's not scientific no matter how smart the people who believe in it believe it to be. How can it is scientific when it's based on religion belief with no scientific foundation? Science is not about faith or belief. It's all about evident. The role of science is to dissolve the uncertainty, not the other way around.

I still dont understand. What is the different in believing in Hitler's propaganda about the master race and believing in the teaching of some priests? You all complain about America's Iraq war propaganda and mock Fat Un's beloved leader propaganda yet have no trouble in believing there is an omnipotent being somewhere who is benevolent and all? You make fun of little girls who believe in unicorn yet still go to church every sunday to worship a supernatural deity? I dont want to bash religious people it seems so weird to me. Why do people offended when I say "there is no God, just gods"? Who are they to, you know, judge other people's gods when they believe in a god themselves? My friend told me that Christian people believe there are demons because if there are no demon to be God's counter force, then there will be no God at all. Then, they should also believe there are other gods, beside their own god since their natural are all the same, no?

With that said, I enjoyed reading Jesus performing his stand in the manga. I enjoyed slaying YHVH, Chakravartin, all kinds of angel and demon, Thor, Odin, Loki and other gods in games. I also think Osamu's Buddha is truly good. And I appreciate the artworks of the people who committed their works to religion, painting, statue, temple and others.

Hurry, Japan. Make a manga about Muhammad's epic journey to become the strongest martial art fighter in the world.

Edited June 11, 2015 by Magical CC

[eclipse]

Creationism is a religious theory. It tries to prove fantasy stuff using the lack of knowledge of humanity about the world, it exploits the limited progression of knowledge acquiring of humanity instead of expanding it. It's not scientific no matter how smart the people who believe in it believe it to be. How can it is scientific when it's based on religion belief with no scientific foundation? Science is not about faith or belief. It's all about evident. The role of science is to dissolve the uncertainty, not the other way around.

I still dont understand. What is the different in believing in Hitler's propaganda about the master race and believing in the teaching of some priests? You all complain about America's Iraq war propaganda and mock Fat Un's beloved leader propaganda yet have no trouble in believing there is an omnipotent being somewhere who is benevolent and all? You make fun of little girls who believe in unicorn yet still go to church every sunday to worship a supernatural deity? I dont want to bash religious people it seems so weird to me. Why do people offended when I say "there is no God, just gods"? Who are they to, you know, judge other people's gods when they believe in a god themselves? My friend told me that Christian people believe there are demons because if there are no demon to be God's counter force, then there will be no God at all. Then, they should also believe there are other gods, beside their own god since their natural are all the same, no?

With that said, I enjoyed reading Jesus performing his stand in the manga. I enjoyed slaying YHVH, Chakravartin, all kinds of angel and demon, Thor, Odin, Loki and other gods in games. I also think Osamu's Buddha is truly good. And I appreciate the artworks of the people who committed their works to religion, painting, statue, temple and others.

Hurry, Japan. Make a manga about Muhammad's epic journey to become the strongest martial art fighter in the world.

Let's see. . .you say you don't want to bash religious people, while you bring up Hitler, unicorns, and manga. I have a very hard time believing what you said, and unless you intend on sticking to the topic (whether it be answering it or going on the inevitable religious debate tangent because my last post wasn't a subtle enough hint that keeping silent is an option), would very much appreciate it if you didn't post stuff like this.

[blah the Prussian]

Well, to be fair, while I am an atheist, there is no proof that there is NOT a god. There is pretty conclusive proof that Kim Jong Un is not benevolent, and that the Germanic people are not the Master Race.

Edited June 11, 2015 by blah2127

[Chiki]

Well, to be fair, while I am an atheist, there is no proof that there is NOT a god. There is pretty conclusive proof that Kim Jong Un is not benevolent, and that the Germanic people are not the Master Race.

I posted a proof in your own ISIS thread.

1) Anyone who lets people die even though they had the power to stop it is evil. (I think everyone can agree on this.)

2) God lets people die needlessly. (You just admitted this)

3) God is evil. (Follows from 1 and 2)

---

4) God is omnibenevolent (by definition).

5) So God is not evil. (follows from 4).

---

6) God doesn't exist because his existence leads to a contradiction (nothing can be evil and not evil at the same time).

There, I proved that God doesn't exist.

Edited June 11, 2015 by Chiki

[Baldrick]

Fine I'll do it PROPERLY

I'm agnostic, the existence of a creation deity is unfalsifiable. Also I don't want to be associated with certain atheists who will go unnamed because this is not FttF.

[blah the Prussian]

@Chiki: Okay, fair enough, I didn't read the religion discussion in that thread, so thats why I didn't see it.

[Magical CC]

Let's see. . .you say you don't want to bash religious people, while you bring up Hitler, unicorns, and manga. I have a very hard time believing what you said, and unless you intend on sticking to the topic (whether it be answering it or going on the inevitable religious debate tangent because my last post wasn't a subtle enough hint that keeping silent is an option), would very much appreciate it if you didn't post stuff like this.

How come reading manga about Jesus and playing game to kill gods of all kinds are bashing religious people? They have the right to respect their gods and I have my right to not to. Bashing religions and bashing religious people are two different things. I look down on religions but I do understand and sympathy with people who are religious. May be they need something to guide them in their life, may be their family forced it on them, may be sad things happen and they need the comfort from someone. I hate eating pepper but even if you love pepper, I still love you. Or cant I?

And you ignored my question, what is the different between believing in gods and believing in propaganda or other magical things? Believe in something just because they said so, believe in magical stuff with no proof. Hitler, unicorns and Santa are my example. And I will have you know that I love unicorn.

Edited June 11, 2015 by Magical CC

[dondon151]

@Chiki: Okay, fair enough, I didn't read the religion discussion in that thread, so thats why I didn't see it.

to be more specific, chiki's post only disproves the abrahamic god, who is described to have those characteristics. he hasn't proved that there are not any gods (since gods can have any combination of characteristics), but that's not really a possible proof, and the burden of proof should be on the one asserting a claim for the existence of gods.

[Snowy_One]

Here.

And here I could disregard your entire post as it's clear you haven't read anything about what I've said and have made up your own fanciful tale. I'm a bit too hard-headed to just let this slide though.

Creationism is a theory, which is either scientific, or not scientific. If it is not scientific, it has no place in science. You seem to think it does, therefore you are saying it is a scientific theory.

Except I did not say that. I said I believed in science and things other people feel are mutually exclusive to Creationism. I did not say it was theory. Do I REALLY need to point out the difference?

I assume the rest of your post was justifying why you think that way.

So... You didn't even read the rest of my post yet you're telling me what I think I said within it? How damned arrogant! If you're going to call me an unscientific hack you need to have at least the dignity to read the post!

As for "believing" in science... it's true whether or not you believe in it. Science is not a religion, science does not require your faith. Putting science in the same category as religion, saying that they may "both be wrong" shows you do not understand what science is.

Ummm... I know exactly what science is. It's a method utilized to observe the world around us. Many people have taken it beyond that but, at its core, that is what it is. One HUGE part about the scientific method is realizing that our observations about the world around us may very well be wrong. I'm sure you know the whole 'The Earth is Flat becoming The Earth is Round' bit, but then people say down, observed, and discovered that due to gravity and centrifugal force it's actually a bit wider at the equator than it is north to south meaning it's actually a bit of an oval. That's part of the method in action. Taking a prior observation, learning from it, and revising what we know as a result.

Also, I CAN place science in the same category as religion as there are people who WILL turn around and use it as a religion in the exact same way as people will utilize religion. Using it as the source of of knowledge and answers about life; even for things that cannot be scientifically determined (like what is and is not ethical) and will also turn around and readily attack anyone who they even suspect is different. If you can you should go watch the two South Park episodes 'Go God Go' and 'Go God Go XII'. IIRC they're free on the South Park site ATM. Before you get all huffy though the point is that there will always be war along with many of the other things people assign to religion even in a world without it. For example there will be people who believe humanity should be custom-tailored to the 'ideal' standards while others who believe people should love and mate with who they want to. So yes, I can place science in the same category as there are people who treat science the exact same was as religious people treat religion.

You really have no idea about the controversy between creationism and science?

Far better than you seeing as I know that not every creationist is not out in some crusade to discredit evolution.

How does that follow from what Cynthia said? She questioned why should we cling to the myth of the Bible.

Why do you assume everyone who does not believe in the Bible only cares about science?

I was unaware that the Bible was now all religions and beliefs across the world. Regardless, I am under no obligation to respond to Cynthia should I choose not to and my point has nothing to do with if the Bible, or even religion in general, is real. Just that replacing it with an absolute devotion to science that is willing to shun and/or condemn anything unscientific results in a world.

Also, I DID NOT SAY THAT! You REALLY need to stop putting words in my mouth or else I'm equally justified in doing the following.

I hate tacos and feel that anyone who likes tacos over burritos is stupid and a brony.

You can choose to not believe in anything religious and still not care about science. There are things such as apathy and/or caring about things such as family or personal gain that do not require religion but are not focused on science and this should be such an obvious thing that stating it should not even be necessary.

[blah the Prussian]

to be more specific, chiki's post only disproves the abrahamic god, who is described to have those characteristics. he hasn't proved that there are not any gods (since gods can have any combination of characteristics), but that's not really a possible proof, and the burden of proof should be on the one asserting a claim for the existence of gods.

True, true; I was merely making a point, rather than throwing my hat in. I don't really care one way or the other.

[Zhadox]

Creationism is a religious theory. It tries to prove fantasy stuff using the lack of knowledge of humanity about the world, it exploits the limited progression of knowledge acquiring of humanity instead of expanding it. It's not scientific no matter how smart the people who believe in it believe it to be. How can it is scientific when it's based on religion belief with no scientific foundation? Science is not about faith or belief. It's all about evident. The role of science is to dissolve the uncertainty, not the other way around.

Do you or anyone else here think the big bang is a theory?

Edited June 11, 2015 by Shadow.X

[Rehab]

How come reading manga about Jesus and playing game to kill gods of all kinds are bashing religious people? They have the right to respect their gods and I have my right to not to. Bashing religions and bashing religious people are two different things. I look down on religions but I do understand and sympathy with people who are religious. May be they need something to guide them in their life, may be their family forced it on them, may be sad things happen and they need the comfort from someone. I hate eating pepper but even if you love pepper, I still love you. Or cant I?

And you ignored my question, what is the different between believing in gods and believing in propaganda or other magical things? Believe in something just because they said so, believe in magical stuff with no proof. Hitler, unicorns and Santa are my example. And I will have you know that I love unicorn.

I'd hazard a guess that Eclipse finds Christianity (or rather, whatever parts of it are most significant to her) a bit more applicable to her life, and more generally appealing, than she does Nazi propaganda. Or the search for/veneration of unicorns. I'd further venture a guess that this is probably also the case for other Christians, and religious people in general.

Speaking of who-gives-a-shit-about-Godwin, religions can provide a powerful avenue for potential indoctrination, yes. I'd assume almost all belief systems which make value judgements on just about anything, in just about any capacity, share this capability. You could maybe argue of religions that their focus on the afterlife and the ultimate fate of the human soul, on our place and purpose in the universe, and their requiring/celebrating intense faith in the truth and righteousness of their beliefs (in a fair number of cases, at least) make them particularly good at it.

But to say or imply that religions are synonymous with indoctrination and belief in nonsense is disingenuous and not like to be taken well. You yourself even hinted at possibly recognizing religions are more than that when insisting you understand why somebody would be religious; like that it gives them a place to take refuge, that they were raised in the tradition and so on. If you understand that somebody might be religious for those reasons, then I'd assume you'd have accepted that religions aren't just cosmologies, they also contain value systems, and provide foundations for the construction of communities, and lend people specific opportunities to see meaning in their actions. (Not to say they're the only things with these capabilities and aspects, but it ought to be apparent why they're more than just a guy insisting that unicorns are a thing and you can't convince him otherwise so there.) I mean, I imagine it'd be pretty hard to find a person who believes in the existence and Divine power of Christ, the Christian god etc, but doesn't even nominally give the least bit of a shit about doing ANY of the things the bible says people are supposed to do, or about at least considering them important. I'd assume that believing in god, at least in the case of Christianity, kinda also means believing in believing what's supposedly god's word, too. (Translation quibbles notwithstanding.)

(This is absolutely not to say religious people can't do things that run contrary to the spirit (nyuck nyuck) of their religion, or even totally contradict it, of course. Or that religions don't also present any problems/dangers. Or that religion is Objectively Good/Better-Than-Not-Religion.)

Edited June 11, 2015 by Rehab

[Skynstein]

Creationism isn't scientific, and not even pseudoscientific. Because the existence of a higher will that created and guided the universe's development cannot be verified by empiric means. Believing in creationism is an act of faith and cannot be put on the same ground as supporting scientific theories that try to explain the universe's creation through scientific demonstration.