[paganel]

> The real truth is we don’t know

I'm an agnostic person but isn't that the present (scientific) consensus right now?

That doesn't necessarily mean that there was a "God" that was behind of it all, but I was left with the impression that the whole "everything happened by chance and chance only" discussion was more common 15-20 years ago compared to now, when we have other agnostic people seriously proposing the "we live in a simulation" theory or the "multiverse/multi-world" theories, both options which are not necessarily random (especially the "simulation" one).

Just to make clear, I'm no scientist and I didn't follow this conversation ("what are the origins of the world/universe?") that closely because I don't find it to be that interesting, so if I'm talking non-sense maybe some other more knowledgeable people can correct me.

[acqq]

We do know that what all famous religions promote is a complete nonsense, as in, what's in the religious books which claim to be fundamental truth just isn't scientific, but instead matches exactly what the humans of the times in which the books were written understood about the world around them. But the humanity learned much more since then.

And it's not a new phenomenon. As the American continent was discovered by Europeans, with all the vegetables never before seen in Europe, it was already completely obvious that the world as described in the "holy" texts doesn't match the facts. America just doesn't exist in the Bible or in Koran, and neither do most of the products we eat today. (2) And then the Mormons, being in America, filled that gap with their "newer" "holy" text again delivered by an angel.

It's so completely not fitting what we scientifically know that the detractors can't argue at that level at all, trying instead to place their god in the "gaps" (1) which became immensely smaller as the scientific knowledge progressed.

The spreaders of doubt can't increase the "gaps" the science already narrowed down, but work day and night to increase the number of people whose own perception of the world around them has bigger gaps, especially by maintaining the false associations in their minds ("when you hear this think instead about that"). That's doable and that's good enough for them. But it's bad for humanity. That's how we have people drinking bleach and spreading such ideas to others. They just remain confused and demotivated to learn consistently ("we should doubt everything especially the science"). And by the same principles, we get the text we all comment here and your response too, hanging exactly to these words.

1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

2) https://www.britannica.com/list/18-food-crops-developed-in-t... -- there's no: beans, corn (maize), peanut, peppers, potato, sunflower or tomato in the Bible and, of course, no American continent. Both in the Bible and in the Koran the Earth is flat, under the solid firmament (the original word meant something like "the thinly beaten firm dome" as the metal bowls were made) to which the stars are attached. In Koran, moreover, the "god" shoots the devils with the shooting stars.

Edit: a response to the "god is unknown" reply: yes, "god" can be "unknown", and I agree that those who argue should first precisely define their "god", what is however known is that whatever the religious books tell you that god is -- just can't be true, and the stories are on the level of simple child stories, from the today's perspective. My definition therefore is "all the appearances and acts of god in the holy texts." If you are ready to throw away everything in the "holy" texts and still believe in "something" that is not against what is already scientifically known, I surely have no problem with that. But a jealous god demanding a firstborn son to be ritually sacrificed, or sending bears to maul children who mocked his prophet, or sacrificing himself on the cross in spite of being almighty and being able to do any simpler intervention, or giving exclusive prophecies to an illiterate caravan robber allowing him to have as many wives as he wants and commanding him to kill all unbelievers? Forgetaboutit.

[nsomaru]

All religion has two aspects; outer ritual and inner philosophy.

It’s quite sad to me to see a community of freethinkers here so summarily dismiss ideas which do not line up with their world view. It’s like Dawkins who only attacks fundamentalists and never looks at more philosophical interpretations, never mind approaching non-Abrahamic traditions.

So yes, rituals differ, maybe outdated and allegory is difficult to relate to. But people throw around this word “God” without even bothering to define it. It’s like saying the answer to an equation is X. No, the answer is not X, X is a postulation which you are required to solve for.

Similarly merely accepting the existence or non existence of God has no meaning. God is unknown. For anyone interested in further reading, please see “The Monk and the Philosopher” (Rivel & Ricard) which served to properly call into question my materialist, “scientific” view of the world and its nature. If you’re looking to challenge your beliefs in this regard and are similarly persuaded as parent or GP, it’s worth a read.

[naringas]

in my own experience the first 3 of the four noble truths (Buddhist philosophy) are very much onto something...

so I disagree with your statement "all religions only promote complete nonsnese" because of that very specific counter example.

[acqq]

Yes, as far as some schools of thought support irreligion, that I surely don't consider as nonsense:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion_in_India#C%C4%81rv%...

E.g. The followers of Cārvāka school "only accepted pratyakşa (perception) as a valid pramāna (evidence)." They were Buddhism's competitors in the times and areas of its initial development. "Thus, the existence of a soul (ātman) and God were rejected, because they could not be proved by perception." OK. But then: "They also considered everything to be made of four elements: earth, water, air and fire." So the whole still reflect the understanding of the people in the times in which it developed. Well at least they rejected the existence of a soul and god.

Also "Jainism and Buddhism consider atheism to be acceptable." Very good.

But I still make a difference between the religious claims and some irreligious teachings of some schools of thought. Studying that context, Buddhism isn't the most successful in not having nonsense, as it was also a product of the compromises in the times in which it developed (as in, moving more "to the middle" in the spectrum between Cārvāka and the opposite extremes), and the later developments were often in the direction of the religion and ritual.

If somebody can be less attacked by some religious fanatics if claiming that he's simply a Buddhist, I support his/her choice fully. The same way, in the areas occupied by one more recent religion, remaining Christian but acknowledging the supremacy of that newer religion sometimes, but not always, "protected" one from being slaughtered, which also saved many (but that state is never stable, following even the most recent news). I'm surely against any religion claiming its own supremacy and the right to oppress all who aren't their flock.

Also kindly note that I never wrote what you put under the quotes, namely, that "all religions only promote complete nonsnese" -- that's your construction, trying to create a straw man which could be more easily attacked. You disagree with a statement I have never made. Good. But please don't claim it's mine. "Only" is not how I talk about it. Of course, the religious texts and stories also repeat some non-religious messages, which often reflect "common sense" or some practical experiences or provide some useful ideas in approaching some specific problems, and there's what could be learned from these.

Personally I deeply enjoy reading the texts of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhuang_Zhou (around 4th century BC). They are so much more satisfying and to me aesthetically pleasing than any in the western world more famous texts written for the religious purposes and therefore more present in people’s minds. I can only recommend Zhuang Zhou. I also thoroughly enjoy works of Homer (8th or 7th century BC) the appearance of gods there as the personified anger or wisdom or lust or the forces of nature are also extremely artistically and intellectually pleasing. We humans do personify everything what we see around us, and on that level, I surely don't have any problem enjoying these stories. The Odyssey is an exceptional work of art, including the acts of all the gods doing what they are doing there. On that level, I claim I believe more in the "gods" of Odyssey than in any other. I surely enjoy when Zeus is mighty, but when he is in Egypt collecting sacrifices, he doesn't have time to help the warriors in Troy which he supports. That's so human and much more easy to relate to, and to believe why he doesn't always "do good." Obviously, he is distracted, and Hera had time to support the warriors she liked! She even distracted him with sex sometimes, if I remember correctly. Pure joy. And when we’re by ancient texts, Gligamesh (2000 years BC) is also a work of geniuses. Written before Bible was written, includes some myths later retold in the Bible, but again still in the form and in the context much more humane than the variants that follow.