Origin beliefs

[ComradeChris]

I was just thinking about the purpose of religion; which is essentially to explain the unknown and in some cases provide morals. I was wondering, since communism proposes the creation of a religiousless society, what will become of the theories of origin? I mean I'm more of a Deist (not exactly, but for simplicity's sake we'll say I am), and what's to say that's less correct then the universe randomly being created? Or that aliens, or something else created life on Earth? I mean in both cases science can't prove either, so why are they wrong? I'm not advocating for religion so to speak, but people here seem to be opposed to anything that's not a scientific theory (even if science can't prove it). It's the same as religions telling other religions they're wrong on such aspects.

I'm not sure where this should belong. Move it to wherever is appropriate if it has been misplaced.

[Parkbench]

|
|
V

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 01:48 AM
and what's to say that's less correct then the universe randomly being created?
Yiou're assuming that the universe needs a "cause".

When you have a way to prove that, call me.

Why do "believers" assume that without their deity everything is an "accident"? If there's no god it's not an accident since nobody planned it to be otherwise. It's just "happened".


Or that aliens, or something else created life on Earth? I mean in both cases science can't prove either, so why are they wrong?

It's not that they are "wrong". Since they cannot be falsified, they are NOT "scientific". Like creationism.


people here seem to be opposed to anything that's not a scientific theory (even if science can't prove it).

Again, science doesn't attemp to "prove". There's always the option that this is all a delusion and we are in some kind of "matrix". Theories are not "proven". That's the creationist fallacy: "evolution (sic) hasn't been proven!". That's because science doesn't "prove" theories.

If it ain't scientific it's very likely to be bullshit.


It's the same as religions telling other religions they're wrong on such aspects.

You're falling for a "you cannot prove invisible pink unicorns do not exist!". No evidence supporting what you want to prove that exists = why should i believe on your delusion?

[ComradeChris]

Yiou're assuming that the universe needs a "cause".

When you have a way to prove that, call me.

Why do "believers" assume that without their deity everything is an "accident"? If there's no god it's not an accident since nobody planned it to be otherwise. It's just "happened".

That's the point!!! Nobody can prove anything about it!! GOOD GRIEF!


It's not that they are "wrong". Since they cannot be falsified, they are NOT "scientific". Like creationism.

What's scientific? Any plausable theory of the universe has just as much basis as the next...until science can prove something.


Again, science doesn't attemp to "prove". There's always the option that this is all a delusion and we are in some kind of "matrix". Theories are not "proven". That's the creationist fallacy: "evolution (sic) hasn't been proven!". That's because science doesn't "prove" theories.

If it ain't scientific it's very likely to be bullshit.

I'm well aware...scientific theory either COULD be right, or is wrong. But there's no evidence that science can provide to earn any more merit points than the "bullshit" that other people claim (about some origin points; definately not everything).


You're falling for a "you cannot prove invisible pink unicorns do not exist!". No evidence supporting what you want to prove that exists = why should i believe on your delusion?

I think you're missing the point...nobody can prove, or provide significant evidence to make any theory really more viable than any others. Like, nowhere else has science shown that somethign can be created from nothing (like the big-bang theory), and spontaneous origins of microscopic life would have been nearly impossible. Nobody knows how Earth was created either. I like the theory that a large amount of NaOH and HCl (plus other stuff to create land) collided.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 03:34 AM
What's scientific? Any plausable theory of the universe has just as much basis as the next...until science can prove something.
Can a religious "theory" about the origins of the universe be falsified? If the answer is no, it's not scientific.


I'm well aware...scientific theory either COULD be right, or is wrong. But there's no evidence that science can provide to earn any more merit points than the "bullshit" that other people claim (about some origin points; definately not everything).

But with the facts we can come to conclusions which can lead to scientific theories which are used to explain the facts. Scientific theories have more validity than superstitions since they come from the facts, while, for example, creationists start with a conclusion and start looking for evidence supporting it, and since they find none they start trying to make evolutionary theory look "unstable".


I think you're missing the point...nobody can prove, or provide significant evidence to make any theory really more viable than any others.

Actually, you CAN provide enough evidence "to make any theory really more viable than any others". For example, if some mechanism which prevents mutations from happening in ALL species, then evolution would be wrong. Then new theories would appear to explain the data.

And by the way, most (all, actually) of these "alternative" theories are not "scientific" theories.


Like, nowhere else has science shown that somethign can be created from nothing (like the big-bang theory),

see? you're again assuming that "something" was "created" from "nothing". The universe could have existed forever. The thing is that the theory of the big bang is supported by evidence, while "goddidit" only exists by faith, wishful thinking, arguments from incredulity and unfalsifiable claims.


and spontaneous origins of microscopic life would have been nearly impossible.

How do you know that?


Nobody knows how Earth was created either.

But we can formulate hypothesis that do not require deities, using available data!

[robob8706]

QUOTE
Like, nowhere else has science shown that somethign can be created from nothing (like the big-bang theory),



see? you're again assuming that "something" was "created" from "nothing". The universe could have existed forever.

One theory is that the start of our universe could have been created from alternate universes that exist in many more dimensions than the human body is capable of detecting, excluding mathematics. Check out "String Theory", really interesting concept. Or maybe the concept of the universe having a beginning and an end is false. Maybe there's no such thing as timeat all.

[ComradeChris]

Can a religious "theory" about the origins of the universe be falsified? If the answer is no, it's not scientific.

Like I said...my beliefs aren't a religion and I can't find the philosophy that it's called. If they were religious I would have put it under religion.


But with the facts we can come to conclusions which can lead to scientific theories which are used to explain the facts. Scientific theories have more validity than superstitions since they come from the facts, while, for example, creationists start with a conclusion and start looking for evidence supporting it, and since they find none they start trying to make evolutionary theory look "unstable".

The thing is, there really are no "facts" about the beginning of the universe or the origins of life. To know for certain someone would pretty much have to have been there or have the first cell or something like that.


Actually, you CAN provide enough evidence "to make any theory really more viable than any others". For example, if some mechanism which prevents mutations from happening in ALL species, then evolution would be wrong. Then new theories would appear to explain the data.

And by the way, most (all, actually) of these "alternative" theories are not "scientific" theories.

I'm not arguing that species evolve. I'm discussing etiology.


see? you're again assuming that "something" was "created" from "nothing". The universe could have existed forever. The thing is that the theory of the big bang is supported by evidence, while "goddidit" only exists by faith, wishful thinking, arguments from incredulity and unfalsifiable claims.

What evidence is available to support the Big Bang Theory. Where is our universe then? It has to be somewhere (or maybe that's wishful thinking in itself).


How do you know that?

Research...discussions with people...the behavior of the parts of a cell and life as we know it on Earth. Like proteins hydrolizing in water, but would also denature due to the sun that would have existed before O2 buildup. Pretty much the same thing with DNA.


But we can formulate hypothesis that do not require deities, using available data!

I know...my personal favourite theory is based on data as well. That HCl + NaOH = H20 and NaCl (saltwater).

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 06:45 AM
Like I said...my beliefs aren't a religion and I can't find the philosophy that it's called. If they were religious I would have put it under religion.
I was talking about the "wacko" theories, if you get my point.


The thing is, there really are no "facts" about the beginning of the universe or the origins of life. To know for certain someone would pretty much have to have been there or have the first cell or something like that.

But we can get information about it from what we find NOW.


I'm not arguing that species evolve. I'm discussing etiology.

You said: "nobody can prove, or provide significant evidence to make any theory really more viable than any others." I gave an example of how a piece of evidence would basically debunk evolution and make "creation" theories better explanations. Another example would be something that makes an "expanding unvierse" impossible or shit like that.


What evidence is available to support the Big Bang Theory.

Just something I found by a quick google search. (http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#BBevidence) There's more as far as I know, like this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2271377.stm).


Where is our universe then? It has to be somewhere (or maybe that's wishful thinking in itself).

?


Research...discussions with people...the behavior of the parts of a cell and life as we know it on Earth. Like proteins hydrolizing in water, but would also denature due to the sun that would have existed before O2 buildup. Pretty much the same thing with DNA.

Wait a second...I heard people claim that abiogenesis is impossible because there was too much oxygen. :rolleyes:

I thought that with the theory of cells "forming" by "geothermal vents" this wasn't very important. Oh, and by the way... Survival of the fittest before the beginning of life: selection of the first oligonucleotide-like polymers by UV light (http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/3/12/abstract)

[ComradeChris]

I was talking about the "wacko" theories, if you get my point.

There are some more absurd ones, I'm just saying there's nothing provable along that point and why only one thoery would be taught in a communist society.


But we can get information about it from what we find NOW.

What do you mean what we find now?


You said: "nobody can prove, or provide significant evidence to make any theory really more viable than any others." I gave an example of how a piece of evidence would basically debunk evolution and make "creation" theories better explanations. Another example would be something that makes an "expanding unvierse" impossible or shit like that.

Evolution (Genotype changes change the phenotype) can be observed. I'm arguing that the FIRST organism was very unlikely by the primordial soup mix theory.


Just something I found by a quick google search. There's more as far as I know, like this.

I'm rather lost on the subject of how old radiation proves the Big Bang theory? Couldn't it be that it's just older radiation?


Wait a second...I heard people claim that abiogenesis is impossible because there was too much oxygen.

I thought that with the theory of cells "forming" by "geothermal vents" this wasn't very important. Oh, and by the way... Survival of the fittest before the beginning of life: selection of the first oligonucleotide-like polymers by UV light

Maybe I'm thinking of O3? Or maybe CO2. If that were the cse, isn't it believed the first species where photosynthetic to use CO2?

[Parkbench]

Where is our universe then? It has to be somewhere (or maybe that's wishful thinking in itself).

That is so Earthling of you!

Seriously, if you reason like a Tralfomordian, everything makes sense--that's my problem. It's half a joke, but I always look at the perspective while people look at these finite details. The main point is that--take out the roots, step outside the box--there's no 'somewhere' the universe has to be. the answer to that question isn't even nowhere as it doesnt even merit an answer because answering it is irrelevant and only beneficial to your twisted creationist argument. that's not even a factor.

'beginning' or 'ending' were never a thing. they have no need to be questioned then--they are completely random human ideas--tralfomordian would be, there is nothing like "somewhere," everything is everyhwere.

Too ambiguous for you? Read Slaughter-house Five and come back to me.


Evolution (Genotype changes change the phenotype) can be observed. I'm arguing that the FIRST organism was very unlikely by the primordial soup mix theory.

Still, you have nothing to throw against that, just the usual creationist 'it can't be true, it's too coincedental' argument.

Anything supernatural or metaphysical is all the same. TO believe in ghosts and god you need the same delusional emotion. To believe in "somehting" (oh so brilliant) is just another word for religion. So yes, your philosophy of 'something' is essentially the same--it is not LIKE a religion, it is a religion; it is a belief (faith, what have you) in a supernatural being.

[red_che]

ComradeChris wrote:
I was just thinking about the purpose of religion; which is essentially to explain the unknown and in some cases provide morals. I was wondering, since communism proposes the creation of a religiousless society, what will become of the theories of origin? I mean I'm more of a Deist (not exactly, but for simplicity's sake we'll say I am), and what's to say that's less correct then the universe randomly being created? Or that aliens, or something else created life on Earth? I mean in both cases science can't prove either, so why are they wrong? I'm not advocating for religion so to speak, but people here seem to be opposed to anything that's not a scientific theory (even if science can't prove it). It's the same as religions telling other religions they're wrong on such aspects.

I'm not sure where this should belong. Move it to wherever is appropriate if it has been misplaced.


I'll try to answer your questions one by one.


I was just thinking about the purpose of religion

From the point of view of a Marxist, religion's purpose is to divert the people's attention from the scientific, materialist conception of history and society. Religion came out as a result first, (primitive communal times) of human's backward conditions. During the primitive times, humans do not have the means and the understanding to answer all the events that occur on its surrounding (lightnings, thunders, even the growing of plants, etc.). Humans tend to answer these questions by referring to a Supernatural Spirit as the creator of all those things. Second, and what is now the general tendency, is to avoid the dialectic relations and material basis of things so they (Bourgeoisie, Landlords and all ruling class) can continue to manipulate all the events, including the misery of the people, as in God's hands.


I was wondering, since communism proposes the creation of a religiousless society, what will become of the theories of origin?

Marxism advances Dialectical and Historical Materialism as the Philosophy or as a tool of analysis in every situation. The theories of origin (Darwin, and all other else) is highly regarded as an advancement in the human understanding of its society.
I don't see any problem with the theories of origin being advance by some scientists. These were in fact been contradicted by religion (Church) then, but were eventually accepted by the people because it answers the questions based on material and existing facts.


what's to say that's less correct then the universe randomly being created? Or that aliens, or something else created life on Earth? I mean in both cases science can't prove either, so why are they wrong?

I am not an expert on that things. But Human history is still young as compared to the entire length that earth and the Universe had been existing. I mean there are still a lot more to be answered. Now, maybe there are more questions like these ones I have quoted that cannot be answered. But as Society advances and the dialectic and materialist conceptions still advances, these questions will be answered along.

That's it. I hope I had given some intelligent answers.

[Dwarf Kirlston]

:)...

Science is for reasonable explanations, many believe some explanations more reasonable than others.

[edit]
... I guess thats not enough...

theories for "creation of world"
1 no creation, always existed
2 big bang
3 "aliens"
4 "God"

Most believe that is in any case rather irrelevant to our current position.
I like the tralfamadorian approach to it, "there is no why"...
And I find the idea of a god creating everything as an anwer to the "why?" not really answering that question anyway, same with the aliens. [edit] same for big bang too...

[The Apathetic Atheist]

I believe that the origin of life is unimportant.

We used to have to work and struggle to survive. Now we (including I) can sit here and think our lives away worrying about what purpose or ultimate design we were a part of, when really no one can know.

There is a religion that views the universe as eternal, with no beginning and no end. It's just impossible to wrap your head around.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by The Apathetic [email protected] 7 2005, 02:21 PM
I believe that the origin of life is unimportant.

We used to have to work and struggle to survive. Now we (including I) can sit here and think our lives away worrying about what purpose or ultimate design we were a part of, when really no one can know.

There is a religion that views the universe as eternal, with no beginning and no end. It's just impossible to wrap your head around.
I completely agree. I mean why argue about such things. And I'm talking for educational purposes. Why would we only teach the dominant belief. Isn't that repressive to the minorities? I mean as long as you don't live your life by your beliefs (and if you do as long as it makes you a better person), I don't see the problem in mentioning a few of the major theories.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 10:19 PM
There are some more absurd ones, I'm just saying there's nothing provable along that point and why only one thoery would be taught in a communist society.
If they are supposed to be "scientific" theories, then they CAN'T be proved.


What do you mean what we find now?

We can make observations on the world that surrounds us and they can't help us to make conclusions. For example, we know that life was around for a billions of years since we find evidence of it in the fossil record.


Evolution (Genotype changes change the phenotype) can be observed. I'm arguing that the FIRST organism was very unlikely by the primordial soup mix theory.

Argument from incredulity


I'm rather lost on the subject of how old radiation proves the Big Bang theory? Couldn't it be that it's just older radiation?

Actually there's more to this but it's an issue I'm not very familiar with. Basically it seems most evidence points towards the idea that the universe has been expanding for a pretty long time and no evidence has been found that contradicts this idea so it's the more reliable theory. I don't get your question by the way.


Maybe I'm thinking of O3? Or maybe CO2. If that were the cse, isn't it believed the first species where photosynthetic to use CO2?

I guess so.

Anyway, I'm kinda lost about this thread, so I'd post my basic idea about this issue:
Superstitious "theories" must be ignored and treated as pseudo-scientific hypothesis. Scientific theories are NOT proven and CAN be falsified (something superstitious pseudo-scientific wackos usually ignore), therefore they have more validity than any superstitious explanation which does not even pass Occam's razor. We are just a bunch of chemicals, we might figure out how we came into existance some day, but just because nobody was there to see it it doesn't mean we have to assume it's impossible or that superstitions are more accurate (especially considering that the entities they use to explain "creation" couldn't have formed by chance either, if we follow their own logic). Believers often misunderstand abiogenesis and resort to their argument from incredulity, or ask for science to "prove" theories, which is NOT what scence's about. We will never know if EVERYTHING, but why should we assume every ridiculous "theory" should be "taught" or "considered"? There are always better explanations than those which base themselves on trying to find flaws on the most supported ones to "prove" some individual's delusion. Superstitions have no place on a fair society as valid explanations.

[ComradeChris]

If they are supposed to be "scientific" theories, then they CAN'T be proved.

Exactly, can't be proved...and that is the purpose of this thread!


We can make observations on the world that surrounds us and they can't help us to make conclusions. For example, we know that life was around for a billions of years since we find evidence of it in the fossil record.

I'm not arguing that or evolution as I've already stated.
What sparked life, the world, and the universe (or did it always exist along with the later two)? Those cannot be answered to a degree of absolute certainty.



Argument from incredulity

How is that incredulous? And I said I'm not here to argue that...but that I'm confused why most communists on this board seem to only want to teach one theory or origins.


Actually there's more to this but it's an issue I'm not very familiar with. Basically it seems most evidence points towards the idea that the universe has been expanding for a pretty long time and no evidence has been found that contradicts this idea so it's the more reliable theory. I don't get your question by the way.

Maybe don't bring in things you can't explain? Maybe that's why you don't understand the question? Because I'm not here to argue specifics, but why one belief (that can't be PROVEN) should be prevailant over another (that can't be PROVEN).

As to your last comment, I agree with that partially. But what defines superstition? My beliefs try to use the laws of nature and philosophical discussions, does that make them superstitious? Many of them have scientific facts to form the basis of my beliefs. Nothing of the issues I'm trying to bring up can be proven; and those are of course the aetiological beliefs harboured for the world, the universe, and life as we know it.

[Vallegrande]

Anyone else heard that fungi were the first to propagate the land? Well it so happens that mushroom spores can withstand all kinds of elements until they are ready to spread. And it is after this fungi that plants and animals are able to live on land. I have also heard in my environmental class that mushrooms are a way to tell how healthy a forest is. These spores are even known to exist in a vacuum. So I believe that spores can travel through space and make it to other planets and produce more life.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 03:23 PM
Anyone else heard that fungi were the first to propagate the land? Well it so happens that mushroom spores can withstand all kinds of elements until they are ready to spread. And it is after this fungi that plants and animals are able to live on land. I have also heard in my environmental class that mushrooms are a way to tell how healthy a forest is. These spores are even known to exist in a vacuum. So I believe that spores can travel through space and make it to other planets and produce more life.
That's pretty interesting. I like the Mudvayne interpretation of it: "We are an ape with a symbiotic relationship to a mushroom" :lol: .

[guerillablack]

Just because Marxism believes religion is the opiate of the masses and seeks to rid religion from society does not mean it is true. You do not have to be athiest to be a communist, nor does the communism you fight for have to try to rid society of religion.

[waltersm]

communism doesn't propose a religionless society, that would be facism

[workersunity]

My religious thoughts come from erasmus darwin, and george fox

[workersunity]

very true guerilla black, but we must remember that those that use religion to cover the social inequalities arent communists and that evangelism would be wiped out

religion is a personal thing and thus it should stay that way

[Spoonman]

I believe in scientists theory of evolution for mankind but I also do believe in a higher power. I believe that the universe was created by this power. What it is cannot be explained as I visualize it as unlimited. Mearly calling it "it," is limiting. I do not follow any specific religions but I love to study all sorts of them and maybe taking some of their virtues upon myself that I deem fitting for me. I would consider myself a spiritual person and most likely always will be. I prize the developement of my soul and inner self over any physical pleasure that this world can give me. Life is beyond our complete comprehension and thats where the beauty of philosophy and religion really shines. For me at least.