Scotty99

Why do people so frequently tie a creator to religion?

Recommended Posts

Never understood why people cannot have a conversation about a creator without bringing up religion. 

I think its fairly likely we were created but we have either lost that knowledge to the past or never had it at all.

Very odd to me that the wiki page for creationism starts off with this line:

Creationism is the religious belief that the universe and life originated "from specific acts of divine creation"

So i am not allowed to believe in a creator without taking our current religious texts into account lol? Just incredibly odd to me, /shrug.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

27 minutes ago, Scotty99 said:

Never understood why people cannot have a conversation about a creator without bringing up religion.

The vast majority of people are familiar with the concept of a creator only through religion. Almost every reference to a creator is made in a religious context and so it is, again, natural that when creators are mentioned people will reference religion. That shouldn't be too difficult to understand.


30 minutes ago, Scotty99 said:

I think its fairly likely we were created but we have either lost that knowledge to the past or never had it at all.

What makes you think this? Evidence? Reasoning? Revelation?

 

31 minutes ago, Scotty99 said:

ry odd to me that the wiki page for creationism starts off with this line:

Creationism is the religious belief that the universe and life originated "from specific acts of divine creation"

Not at all odd for the reasons noted in my first comments.

 

31 minutes ago, Scotty99 said:

So i am not allowed to believe in a creator without taking our current religious texts into account lol? Just incredibly odd to me, /shrug.

What makes you think such a restriction has been placed on you? All that is asked of you is that you acknowledge that the vast majority of people associate the concept of a creator with one or more religions. You are not expected to think this is a good approach, you simply need to recognise it as reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well im not allowed to think that, or at the very minimum im unable to have conversations about it lol. (in reference to your last quote)

 

To me its almost inevitable we have a creator, and its just as likely none of our religious texts are accurate. I think this way for a variety of reasons that are not really relevant to the thread. I guess its just surprising to me more people have not come to this conclusion, and want to have discussions about it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Scotty99 said:

To me its almost inevitable we have a creator

As this is a belief without evidence, it is basically a religious belief. 

But I have seen lots of discussions by people who think we were created by an alien intelligence or are part of a simulation or ...

So your belief may not be unique. And your belief you can’t discuss it appears to be false. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Strange said:

As this is a belief without evidence, it is basically a religious belief. 

But I have seen lots of discussions by people who think we were created by an alien intelligence or are part of a simulation or ...

So your belief may not be unique. And your belief you can’t discuss it appears to be false. 

I mean, i have my reasons of course. I didn't just wake up one day thinking this stuff, ive done some research over the past few years and that is the conclusion ive come up with. I know others have came to similar conclusions, but they seem few and far between.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Scotty99 said:

I mean, i have my reasons of course. I didn't just wake up one day thinking this stuff, ive done some research over the past few years and that is the conclusion ive come up with. I know others have came to similar conclusions, but they seem few and far between.

4

If you present your research and reasons for this conclusion, we'd have something to discuss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The concept of a creator is based only on belief (not evidence) that is why it is tied with religion. As opposed to the OP, I was always puzzled why a cosmically insignificant, 160K year old species belief could have a chance of being true on a 4,5 billion year old earth. Human existence is a grain of sand in the vast dunes of time and evolution which took place before us and most likely will take place long after we are gone. Our human beliefs have such an incredibly small chance of being true in this fantastically big void of time and space that I find it equally plausible that our creator is a pink flying unicorn flying around in space quacking like a duck. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, koti said:

The concept of a creator is based only on belief (not evidence) that is why it is tied with religion. As opposed to the OP, I was always puzzled why a cosmically insignificant, 160K year old species belief could have a chance of being true on a 4,5 billion year old earth. Human existence is a grain of sand in the vast dunes of time and evolution which took place before us and most likely will take place long after we are gone. Our human beliefs have such an incredibly small chance of being true in this fantastically big void of time and space that I find it equally plausible that our creator is a pink flying unicorn flying around in space quacking like a duck. 

As for the bold part, that makes up about 1/2 of how i came to my conclusions......i feel we are significant. Ive done plenty of research about the copernican principle, and i feel that is where science took a wrong turn.

The other half is human history. We really have no clue about anything past a couple thousand years ago, a tiny tiny sliver of time. I find it very likely we have been more advanced in the past than we are now, and no im not saying we had 12g lte 15 or 20,000 years ago :) To me its very plausible we have had a greater understanding of this universe in the past, that has simply been lost to time. Basically we are in a "lost" period of human history right now, how else would you explain the technological boom of the past 100 years when the great pyramid was the tallest structure on the planet for 3,800 years? I strongly feel we knew things in the past that we don't now.

There is more to it than that obviously, but those are two i feel pretty strongly about.

Whats funny is i just now stumbled across someone who kind of thinks like me, but not exactly:

This "mystic" gets a lot of what i get, the first 10 minutes of that video he is literally describing me lol. When i was young (about 13) i decided in my head to not stick tight to any one way of thinking, at that age i realize that is how people get into arguments and how fights start. I was trying to outsmart my parents and it wired my brain in a way where i dont tie myself to anything, its been a huge positive and negative in my life. I havent even finished the video, but 20 minutes in i think some of you may find it a bit interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Scotty99 said:

Never understood why people cannot have a conversation about a creator without bringing up religion. 

I think its fairly likely we were created but we have either lost that knowledge to the past or never had it at all.

Very odd to me that the wiki page for creationism starts off with this line:

Creationism is the religious belief that the universe and life originated "from specific acts of divine creation"

So i am not allowed to believe in a creator without taking our current religious texts into account lol? Just incredibly odd to me, /shrug.

 

Part of the reason is group think and the primitive human urge to control the thoughts of others.   This psychological insecurity manifests in practically every collective form of belief: from religion, to politics, to science, which often devolves into scientism (an ideological representation of science that is divorced from objectivity).  Currently one incarnation of scientism holds that the universe is completely random, and there is no underlying creative intelligence manifesting itself (indicating a creator), a view that seems patently absurd to people objectively observing the universe. 

So it seems very difficult for human beings to extricate themselves from  A.) conforming to a particular philosophical worldview and B.) attempting to eradicate any dissent that may arise in opposition to this worldview.  Thus, while the interest in a creator may be innate in humankind, so is the fear of what a creator signifies and the response that arises from that fear (i.e. conformity and control). 

Inevitably the concept of a creator becomes codified into a system of control for the benefit of a few people (as has occurred in all the major religions), or, as we have seen recently in science, the notion that their is no creator (atheism) becomes codified and those who openly discuss the possibility of one are ridiculed and shouted down. 

So what you're encountering with Wikipedia has been going on since the dawn of time.  You have to see past the narrow, prejudiced philosophies of those attempting to define the existence of a creator and find your own answers.   

 

Edited by Alex_Krycek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Scotty99 said:

i feel we are significant.

This, and the entirety, of the rest of your post is entirely and 100% a religious statement. 

But you could monetise this. There is a lot of money to be made from selling religion - as the inventor of Scientology demonstrated. (Although he also went mad: swings and roundabouts :))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Scotty99 said:

Ive done plenty of research about the copernican principle, and i feel that is where science took a wrong turn.

This is especially interesting, could you abbreviate on this and explain what exactly you mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, koti said:

This is especially interesting, could you abbreviate on this and explain what exactly you mean?

Id rather not get into it here to be honest, just know as someone with zero ties to religion ever i came to the conclusion on my own its more likely we are in the center of the universe than us being a random speck revolving around a random star.

I used to be like most people and would say of course there is other life in the universe, look how big it is and how many trillions of galaxies there are. Alas the deeper i dug, the more and more likely a creator became to me.

I wont be getting into specifics in this thread, but there is plenty of reading material out there for people wanting to do some research on the copernican principle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Scotty99 said:

As for the bold part, that makes up about 1/2 of how i came to my conclusions......i feel we are significant. Ive done plenty of research about the copernican principle, and i feel that is where science took a wrong turn.

The other half is human history. We really have no clue about anything past a couple thousand years ago, a tiny tiny sliver of time. I find it very likely we have been more advanced in the past than we are now, and no im not saying we had 12g lte 15 or 20,000 years ago :) To me its very plausible we have had a greater understanding of this universe in the past, that has simply been lost to time. Basically we are in a "lost" period of human history right now, how else would you explain the technological boom of the past 100 years when the great pyramid was the tallest structure on the planet for 3,800 years? I strongly feel we knew things in the past that we don't now.

I can relate to this quite strongly. These are the same kind of thoughts I used to have, but then I learned the art of skepticism and critical thinking and I grew up. I thoroughly recommend it. Everything you are speaking of is based on your feelings. Great things, feelings, but utterly useless in determing facts and understanding reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Area54 said:

I can relate to this quite strongly. These are the same kind of thoughts I used to have, but then I learned the art of skepticism and critical thinking and I grew up. I thoroughly recommend it. Everything you are speaking of is based on your feelings. Great things, feelings, but utterly useless in determing facts and understanding reality.

Its based on both fact and feelings, intuition is something that needs to be taken into account......and i trust my brain.

2 minutes ago, seriously disabled said:

In my opinion this world is just too evil and cruel for there to be a caring world.

If there was a God who cares about people then the world would not have been such a bad place for so many people.

Also I wouldn't be such a lonely loser if there was a higher being who truly cared about me.

But look at me: I'm 32 year-old lonely loser who can't even get a single date with a girl. I'm so ugly and pathetic that i'm even afraid to leave the house and socialize with other people.

I can't even get a single kiss or hug from a girl so this is why I think I'm the ultimate loser when it comes to girls.

 

Just know one thing my dude, everyone has something special......you just need to find it. It took me to 35 years to figure out what i was good at, were late bloomers is all :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Scotty99 said:

Id rather not get into it here to be honest, just know as someone with zero ties to religion ever i came to the conclusion on my own its more likely we are in the center of the universe than us being a random speck revolving around a random star.

I used to be like most people and would say of course there is other life in the universe, look how big it is and how many trillions of galaxies there are. Alas the deeper i dug, the more and more likely a creator became to me.

I wont be getting into specifics in this thread, but there is plenty of reading material out there for people wanting to do some research on the copernican principle.

I see hope in the fact that you seem reluctant in explaining this. Presumably it is shame which prevents you from explaining this ridiculousness further. I would urge you to hold on to that shame and guide yourself in such a way that you will be able to express your views without that shame. Having said that;

Earth is not in the center of the observable universe, amongst others WMAP project gave us evidence for this, we are sure where we are and it is not the center of the universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Scotty99 said:

Its based on both fact and feelings, intuition is something that needs to be taken into account......and i trust my brain.

Yet you are unwilling to share the facts on which you based your conclusion. Choosing not to share facts on a science discussion forum is neither smart nor courteous. It smacks of trolling. I am reasonably sure you are not stupid, nor do you intend to troll, or be rude, so I look forward to reading about the facts you base your world view on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, koti said:

I see hope in the fact that you seem reluctant in explaining this. Presumably it is shame which prevents you from explaining this ridiculousness further. I would urge you to hold on to that shame and guide yourself in such a way that you will be able to express your views without that shame. Having said that;

Earth is not in the center of the observable universe, amongst others WMAP project gave us evidence for this, we are sure where we are and it is not the center of the universe.

I don't think there is anything to explain, it would simply turn the thread into me linking articles and others linking articles and in the end nothing would be accomplished. There is definitely dissention among the scientific community about the validity of the copernican principle, denying this only admits ignorance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Scotty99 said:

I don't think there is anything to explain, it would simply turn the thread into me linking articles and others linking articles and in the end nothing would be accomplished. There is definitely dissention among the scientific community about the validity of the copernican principle, denying this only admits ignorance.

Any scientist who does not admit ignorance is not worthy of the name scientist. I am hugely ignorant. Specifically I am ignorant of this dissension in the scientific community regarding the Copernican principle. Please help educate me by providing links to articles, preferably peer reviewed, that discuss it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Area54 said:

Yet you are unwilling to share the facts on which you based your conclusion. Choosing not to share facts on a science discussion forum is neither smart nor courteous. It smacks of trolling. I am reasonably sure you are not stupid, nor do you intend to troll, or be rude, so I look forward to reading about the facts you base your world view on.

Definitely not trolling, main reason for the thread is to just get people's thoughts on why religion is so tightly entwined with discussions of a creator, been some good replies so far.

2 minutes ago, Area54 said:

Any scientist who does not admit ignorance is not worthy of the name scientist. I am hugely ignorant. Specifically I am ignorant of this dissension in the scientific community regarding the Copernican principle. Please help educate me by providing links to articles, preferably peer reviewed, that discuss it.

Trust me you dont want to go down that road, its too big to get into here. It really is a agree to disagree sort of situation with the copernican principle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Scotty99 said:

and i trust my brain.

We know (from scientific evidence) that the brain cannot be trusted. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Strange said:

We know (from scientific evidence) that the brain cannot be trusted. 

Well ive been on both sides of this discussion strange, which brain do i not trust :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Scotty99 said:

Trust me you dont want to go down that road, its too big to get into here. It really is a agree to disagree sort of situation with the copernican principle.

Please don't presume to tell me what I do or do not want. I assure you I do want to know some details of this claim you have made that there is dissension in the scientific community about the Copernican principle. You have made the assertion. Now substantiate it, or concede that you were mistaken in believing that was the case.

I am not asking to get into it here. I am asking to you simply to provide information about the claim. If there is dissension in the scientific community then there will be numerous peer reviewed papers discussing that dissension. All I need is a link to one of them.

Frankly, I would be amazed if a scientist or two had not rejected the concept. That, however, would not constitute dissension in the scientific community. That's just a couple of mavericks being contrary.

I would be astounded if several scientists had not revisited the concept and subjected it to intense scrutiny. That, however, would not constitute dissension in the scientific community.  That's just a variety of scientists being rigorous in their application of the scientific method.

So please, where is this dissension? Anybody?

Edit: I do hope you are not referencing the Anthropic Principle, which in many of its guises is wholly compatible. But I won't know until you share your "secret" with the forum.

Edited by Area54

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Scotty99 said:

There is definitely dissention among the scientific community about the validity of the copernican principle, denying this only admits ignorance.

It is imperative that you explain your point of view on the validity of the Copernican principle before you start calling people ignorant. Copernican principle is a well established fact backed up by countless evidence and there is no dissention amongst the scientific community, wait...am I really writing this?!

Please start backing up what you are saying with evidence and please be clear about what dissention there is in the scientific community about the copernican principle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol no its not imperative, you are free to do your own research on the topic as i did.

 

I do understand the feeling you must have tho, would be like the rug taken out from under your and for that i do apologize. There are a lot of problems in science today, it is in my opinion many of them stem from the fact we declared the earth insignificant.

This is one of those topics you dont see talked about much, as most of science is "moving forward". You can trust me when i say that the CP is discussed a lot behind closed doors.

Edited by Scotty99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Scotty99 said:

 

lol no its not imperative, you are free to do your own research on the topic as i did.

The arrogance of this statement is stunning. Why do you assume that people who don’t agree with you are somehow ignorant and “need to do research”? Maybe they are already very familiar with the subject .

If you are unable to provide any evidence supporting your beliefs then there is no reason for anyone to take them seriously. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.