Some Important Facts for the Religious (and Everybody Else)

[Unknown Soldier]

1. The observable cosmos is 13.6 billion years old and has evolved into its present form.
2. The earth is 4.6 billion years old and along with the rest of the solar system formed under gravity from a cloud of dust and gas in space.
3. Not only is there no evidence that any consciousness can function without a living, physical brain, it is impossible to do so.
4. Humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor, and we split off from that ancestor six million years ago in Africa.
5. Prehistoric religion goes back at least thirty thousand years.
6. Historic religion started about five thousand years ago in Mesopotamia and Egypt.
7. The oldest religion practiced today is Hinduism.
8. The creation stories in Genesis 1-2 are taken from Babylonian mythology.
9. No religious or spiritual healer has ever been proved to have genuine healing powers although many of them have been exposed as frauds.

There are many more such facts, but my point is that if you know what's going on, then you know better than to believe what religion claims.

 

[Tigers!]

Thank you.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Genesis 1 is adapted from the Babylonian mythology epic. Genesis 2 is sort of an epilogue.

3 is unsubstanstianted
9 is argumentative and doesn't continue on the science narrative

Otherwise, I would say this is kind of preaching to the choir.

 

[Jarhyn]

1. The observable cosmos is 13.6 billion years old and has evolved into its present form.
2. The earth is 4.6 billion years old and along with the rest of the solar system formed under gravity from a cloud of dust and gas in space.
3. Not only is there no evidence that any consciousness can function without a living, physical brain, it is impossible to do so.
4. Humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor, and we split off from that ancestor six million years ago in Africa.
5. Prehistoric religion goes back at least thirty thousand years.
6. Historic religion started about five thousand years ago in Mesopotamia and Egypt.
7. The oldest religion practiced today is Hinduism.
8. The creation stories in Genesis 1-2 are taken from Babylonian mythology.
9. No religious or spiritual healer has ever been proved to have genuine healing powers although many of them have been exposed as frauds.

There are many more such facts, but my point is that if you know what's going on, then you know better than to believe what religion claims.

On 3: I will agree that consciousness requires a physical graph instantiation to be called "consciousness" at all and that this needs to exist in a temporal continuity.

That said, this does not in any way rule out super-physicality and the corralary of sub-physics. In fact we have observed sub-physics around which which ours is a super-physicality.

This does not, however, imply that there is necessarily a super-physicality around our physics. It merely means there may be, and that IF there is such, and it contains an entity which built this, that they are limited in fact by the same things that limit us with respect to understanding "that which is right and wrong" with respect to entities like us with brains.

Ironically, we could end up being more ethically developed than a "creator god".

Oh, the irony...

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Genesis 1 is adapted from the Babylonian mythology epic. Genesis 2 is sort of an epilogue.

Great. You know that the Jews stole mythology from pagans and reworked it to fit their own needs for religious propaganda.

3 is unsubstanstianted

I'd recommend you check out on YouTube what physicist Sean M Carroll has to say about the afterlife. He says that from what we know about physics, any life after death is impossible.

9 is argumentative and doesn't continue on the science narrative

It's sad how people turn a blind eye to the abuses of faith healing. The victims of faith healers are being cheated out of their meager savings not to mention being made sicker and even dying. The authorities won't touch this nefarious practice because it's religion, and they know that there will be a backlash from Christians if the authorities try to stop it. I can only warn people and hope they wise up.

Otherwise, I would say this is kind of preaching to the choir.

Maybe the choir will wise up.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Genesis 1 is adapted from the Babylonian mythology epic. Genesis 2 is sort of an epilogue.

Great. You know that the Jews stole mythology from pagans and reworked it to fit their own needs for religious propaganda.

Hebrews at the time. And most adapt from others.

3 is unsubstanstianted

I'd recommend you check out on YouTube what physicist Sean M Carroll has to say about the afterlife. He says that from what we know about physics, any life after death is impossible.

It is unsubstantiated.

9 is argumentative and doesn't continue on the science narrative

It's sad how people turn a blind eye to the abuses of faith healing. The victims of faith healers are being cheated out of their meager savings not to mention being made sicker and even dying. The authorities won't touch this nefarious practice because it's religion, and they know that there will be a backlash from Christians if the authorities try to stop it. I can only warn people and hope they wise up.

You were listing "facts". Facts are indisputable. 9 was more of a judgment.

Otherwise, I would say this is kind of preaching to the choir.

Maybe the choir will wise up.

Okay, umm... do you know what "preaching to the choir" means?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Genesis 1 is adapted from the Babylonian mythology epic. Genesis 2 is sort of an epilogue.

Great. You know that the Jews stole mythology from pagans and reworked it to fit their own needs for religious propaganda.

Hebrews at the time.

It's best to post using complete sentences.

And most adapt from others.

If by "most" you mean most emerging religions, then I think a better word to use is plagiarize. New religions tend to plagiarize the myths and legends that already work for established religions. Mormonism plagiarized Christianity and Islam, Christianity plagiarized Judaism and paganism, and Judaism plagiarized paganism. Religion is like the auto industry: Completely new designs are less likely to be profitable than updating existing designs.

3 is unsubstanstianted

I'd recommend you check out on YouTube what physicist Sean M Carroll has to say about the afterlife. He says that from what we know about physics, any life after death is impossible.

It is unsubstantiated.

If you want substantiation for death, then just dig up anybody's grave. You'll have no trouble literally seeing the substance of what happens to all of us post-death. Hint: Whatever may be left of the brain has ceased to function. The deceased no longer has consciousness.

9 is argumentative and doesn't continue on the science narrative

It's sad how people turn a blind eye to the abuses of faith healing. The victims of faith healers are being cheated out of their meager savings not to mention being made sicker and even dying. The authorities won't touch this nefarious practice because it's religion, and they know that there will be a backlash from Christians if the authorities try to stop it. I can only warn people and hope they wise up.

You were listing "facts". Facts are indisputable. 9 was more of a judgment.

Item 9 on my list is a fact, and contrary to what you say, facts are quite disputable. People tend to deny what they don't want to believe no matter how obvious those facts may be. Of course, you could conceivably prove me wrong with just one religious healer who can really get the job done, but as we all know no such healers are available.

And by the way, I've noticed that you didn't post one word of concern about the victims of fake healers that I mentioned. You just waved it away denying its truth and dismissing what I said as a "judgment" whatever that might mean. None of us need to wonder why there is so much neglect and abuse of those who are ill or live with infirmities when we make our pet mythology a higher priority than human welfare and dignity.

Otherwise, I would say this is kind of preaching to the choir.

Maybe the choir will wise up.

Okay, umm... do you know what "preaching to the choir" means?

OK, umm; I might not know what you mean by preaching to the choir, but for me the choir is any person who will honestly listen to me.

 

[Politesse]

1. The observable cosmos is 13.6 billion years old and has evolved into its present form.
2. The earth is 4.6 billion years old and along with the rest of the solar system formed under gravity from a cloud of dust and gas in space.
3. Not only is there no evidence that any consciousness can function without a living, physical brain, it is impossible to do so.
4. Humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor, and we split off from that ancestor six million years ago in Africa.
5. Prehistoric religion goes back at least thirty thousand years.
6. Historic religion started about five thousand years ago in Mesopotamia and Egypt.
7. The oldest religion practiced today is Hinduism.
8. The creation stories in Genesis 1-2 are taken from Babylonian mythology.
9. No religious or spiritual healer has ever been proved to have genuine healing powers although many of them have been exposed as frauds.

There are many more such facts, but my point is that if you know what's going on, then you know better than to believe what religion claims.

If you're going to evangelize for "sciencey-ness", you should at least learn the important habit of citing your sources.

 

[steve_bank]

I think by preaching to the choir imaybe meant if at all possible tell us something we do not already know....

 

[Unknown Soldier]

1. The observable cosmos is 13.6 billion years old and has evolved into its present form.
2. The earth is 4.6 billion years old and along with the rest of the solar system formed under gravity from a cloud of dust and gas in space.
3. Not only is there no evidence that any consciousness can function without a living, physical brain, it is impossible to do so.
4. Humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor, and we split off from that ancestor six million years ago in Africa.
5. Prehistoric religion goes back at least thirty thousand years.
6. Historic religion started about five thousand years ago in Mesopotamia and Egypt.
7. The oldest religion practiced today is Hinduism.
8. The creation stories in Genesis 1-2 are taken from Babylonian mythology.
9. No religious or spiritual healer has ever been proved to have genuine healing powers although many of them have been exposed as frauds.

There are many more such facts, but my point is that if you know what's going on, then you know better than to believe what religion claims.

If you're going to evangelize for "sciencey-ness", you should at least learn the important habit of citing your sources.

Here you go:

Age of the universe - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Age of Earth - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Scientist Claims Life After Death Is Impossible

Sean Carroll has used the laws of physics to put the idea of an afterlife to bed, once and for all

www.ladbible.com

Chimpanzee–human last common ancestor - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

History of religion - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Timeline of religion - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Oldest Religions In The World

Many religions may be all but gone but some of the most time-worn faiths are still around. Find out more about the oldest religions still practiced.

theculturetrip.com

Genesis creation narrative - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Faith Healers - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It took me less than ten minutes to find these links. It's important to understand that citing sources for what is commonly known is not required when writing research reports.

Anyway, here's another link you may find useful:

How to search on Google - Google Search Help

Learn a few tips and tricks to help you easily find information on Google. Tip 1: Start with the basics No matter what you're looking for, start with a sim

support.google.com

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It also occurred to me, regarding 7, that Zoroastrianism is the oldest continuously practiced religion on Earth today. Not that the claim really means anything, other than stuff came before Christianity, Judiasm, and Islam.

If you want substantiation for death, then just dig up anybody's grave. You'll have no trouble literally seeing the substance of what happens to all of us post-death. Hint: Whatever may be left of the brain has ceased to function. The deceased no longer has consciousness.

Except, you are constraining the concept of consciousness to our own type of consciousness, which is rather short-sighted. Other versions could be possible. Just because we have a brain in a certain form doesn't mean consciousness can not propagate otherwise.

 

[steve_bank]

If you're going to evangelize for "sciencey-ness", you should at least learn the important habit of citing your sources.

Sciency-ness stuff?

I'd say the statements by Universal Soldier to some of us here are generaly common knowledge.

It is superior to mytholgynee and , relgionyness. Academic fantasyness. And so on.

 

[Politesse]

1. The observable cosmos is 13.6 billion years old and has evolved into its present form.
2. The earth is 4.6 billion years old and along with the rest of the solar system formed under gravity from a cloud of dust and gas in space.
3. Not only is there no evidence that any consciousness can function without a living, physical brain, it is impossible to do so.
4. Humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor, and we split off from that ancestor six million years ago in Africa.
5. Prehistoric religion goes back at least thirty thousand years.
6. Historic religion started about five thousand years ago in Mesopotamia and Egypt.
7. The oldest religion practiced today is Hinduism.
8. The creation stories in Genesis 1-2 are taken from Babylonian mythology.
9. No religious or spiritual healer has ever been proved to have genuine healing powers although many of them have been exposed as frauds.

There are many more such facts, but my point is that if you know what's going on, then you know better than to believe what religion claims.

If you're going to evangelize for "sciencey-ness", you should at least learn the important habit of citing your sources.

Here you go:

Age of the universe - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Age of Earth - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Scientist Claims Life After Death Is Impossible

Sean Carroll has used the laws of physics to put the idea of an afterlife to bed, once and for all

www.ladbible.com

Chimpanzee–human last common ancestor - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

History of religion - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Timeline of religion - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Oldest Religions In The World

Many religions may be all but gone but some of the most time-worn faiths are still around. Find out more about the oldest religions still practiced.

theculturetrip.com

Genesis creation narrative - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Faith Healers - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It took me less than ten minutes to find these links. It's important to understand that citing sources for what is commonly known is not required when writing research reports.

Anyway, here's another link you may find useful:

How to search on Google - Google Search Help

Learn a few tips and tricks to help you easily find information on Google. Tip 1: Start with the basics No matter what you're looking for, start with a sim

support.google.com

"Common knowledge", and yet your own sources indicate that nearly all of your confident statements here are not entirely accurate.

1. A different age range is offered for the universe the absolute date that you have claimed, by at least 160 million years, and it is clearly noted even from the first paragraph that this is an estimate, not a "fact", and that at least one very significant set of data contradicts that estimate, raising some interesting questions that have yet to be quite answered. This particularly impacts your statement, as you specify the observable universe, which is the source of the problem: the better we are able to actually observe the evidence (by dint of being physically and therfore temporally closer to the source of the data) the less it seems to confirm the agreed-upon model.

2. Your provided number here is once again an absolute value rather than a range, and falls outside the range cited by your source by at least 10 million years.

3. Ah yes, the LAD Bible, that known reputable source. I note that the scientist cited in the article offers no more support for his assertion than you do, nor does your source claim that this is anything other than an opinion.

4. Wrong number again, and not found anywhere in your cited source, though at least this time you've picked a number credibly within the range of those currently being considered. That said, the actual time of divergence is not only unknown but indeed one of the most significant debates within contemporary paleoanthropology... as your source correctly notes.

5. Also one of the hottest debates in the field at present, and your source correctly acknowledges the many, many competing theories on the evolution of religious practice, and indeed debates on how said phenomenon can even be defined let alone detected. But the number in your post is almost certainly wrong, and way too young. Inasmuch as there is any consensus on this question, nearly all archaeologists agree that Magdalanean phase art and ritual practices constitute evidence of religious thinking more than 20,000 years before the date you have offered. If we accept the somewhat less consensus opinioon that intential burials are a religious practice, you're wrong by a much larger margin of nearly 270,000 years.

6. Is true, though only trivially, as that's when writing systems complex enough to portray religious ideas were invented.

7. At least you agree with your source on this one, kind of. I question the authority of theculturetrip.com on this matter, however. This is, like many of the above, a topic of considerable dispute for a whole host of reasons, which we can get into if you're genuinely interested.

8. Your statement directly contradicts your source, which notes:

"Genesis 1 bears both striking differences from and striking similarities to Babylon's national creation myth, the Enuma Elish."

And says nothing about one having been "taken from" the other. The current scholarly consensus is that both were derived from common Mesopotamian beliefs concerning the nature of the universe, which almost certainly and would not have been considered "religious" issues at the time except insofar as particular (and different) deities were said to have played a role in the creation.

9. Is similar to 3. Why would the unsupported opinion of a professional magician have any bearing on what is or is not considered to be a "fact" in this case? Even if it did, I betcha good money we could find some other professional magicians who disagree with yours. Randi's book is just a book, and doesn't claim to be anything else I don't think.

-------------------------------------------

Read your sources. Better yet, investigate them. Anyone can be a scientist, not just the toney men in the lab coats, but it requires an open and inquisitive mind. Fundamentally, science is not a source of dogma. It is a conversation, and you'd learn more by engaging with it than by lazily parroting it.

And yes, I do know how to google. But I also don't need to, as I have a strong interest in most of the issues you've raised and immediately noticed that your numbers were out of date. My reason for commenting in the first place was annoyance at these inaccuracies. By encouraging you to cite your sources, my hope was that it would encourage you to read some of them.

To put it another way, if you're going to preach at people, at least get your facts straight first.

 

[steve_bank]

This is an informal forum with people of different backgrounds an interests. Most of us make a reasonable effort to be facially correct, but it is not required.

Playing the role of the professor grading a student's paper is out of place here. Thre forums that are more formal and where yiu can be penalized for for form and content.

There are many more such facts, but my point is that if you know what's going on, then you know better than to believe what religion claims.

Is there anything in the post that does not support the conclusion? That would be the question.

Establshed history and science which tends to refute religious clams.

There is a Native American myth that horses were a gift to thmn from a spirt or god. We know historically horses used by NA came from horses brought over from Europe.

Horses in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There are Native American creation myths refuted by genetics which shows the migration paths and gentic origins of the Native North Americans. In fact the word native in the light of science is a misnomer.

 

[Politesse]

This is an informal forum with people of different backgrounds an interests. Most of us make a reasonable effort to be facially correct, but it is not required.

Playing the role of the professor grading a student's paper is out of place here. Thre forums that are more formal and where yiu can be penalized for for form and content.

I'm not grading anyone. I am saying that if you're going to be a pedant, you should at least be pedant about facts which are actually correct. If Unknown Soldier can't be bothered to look up any of these "facts" before posting them, what's the point of the thread?

Indeed, if I'm not allowed to point out that their facts are wrong, what is there to discuss? Were we all just supposed to nod our heads, and go "You are soooo right, man! Well, that sure was good discussion. Good night."

 

[bilby]

It also occurred to me, regarding 7, that Zoroastrianism is the oldest continuously practiced religion on Earth today. Not that the claim really means anything, other than stuff came before Christianity, Judiasm, and Islam.

If you want substantiation for death, then just dig up anybody's grave. You'll have no trouble literally seeing the substance of what happens to all of us post-death. Hint: Whatever may be left of the brain has ceased to function. The deceased no longer has consciousness.

Except, you are constraining the concept of consciousness to our own type of consciousness, which is rather short-sighted. Other versions could be possible. Just because we have a brain in a certain form doesn't mean consciousness can not propagate otherwise.

It seems reasonable to say that if our consciousness is to be said to have survived the destruction of our physical brains, it would have to be our own type of consciousness.

Other types of consciousness are, by definition, not us.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

"Common knowledge", and yet your own sources indicate that nearly all of your confident statements here are not entirely accurate.

You're splitting hairs. The exact details of whatever sources we can find on the internet regarding my facts are beside the point. What matters is that the knowledge we have from science, history, and other disciplines means big trouble for religious faith because religious dogma is very often inconsistent with our knowledge.

Why would the unsupported opinion of a professional magician have any bearing on what is or is not considered to be a "fact" in this case?

I was personally victimized by fake healers, and the evidence Randi has documented about them agrees exactly with my experiences with them. Most such supposed healers are quacks and hucksters, and the rest are obviously deluded. In either case, what they do is a threat to the public health.

Now, you need not believe what either I or Randi say about these con-artists. You can easily determine for yourself that what I said about religious healers is indeed a fact. Just give them a try. See if they can actually cure or heal an otherwise incurable illness or injury. Investigate them to see if they're after money.

Even if it did, I betcha good money we could find some other professional magicians who disagree with yours. Randi's book is just a book, and doesn't claim to be anything else I don't think.

Oh, and I will bet you any money that you'll never find a professional magician with no religious agenda who will disagree with Randi's assessment of healers and explain how they have genuine powers that cannot be explained as trickery. Post your wager.

To put it another way, if you're going to preach at people, at least get your facts straight first.

You need to educate yourself about hair-splitting. Since you know how to use Google, it may be prudent to use Google to investigate that fallacy.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

3. Not only is there no evidence that any consciousness can function without a living, physical brain, it is impossible to do so.

That one contains infinite volumes of discussion primarily because of the "consciousness" claim. Aside "consciousness" it certainly applies to humans based on all our observations. "Physical" brain? Is there some other kind?

 

[steve_bank]

This is an informal forum with people of different backgrounds an interests. Most of us make a reasonable effort to be facially correct, but it is not required.

Playing the role of the professor grading a student's paper is out of place here. Thre forums that are more formal and where yiu can be penalized for for form and content.

I'm not grading anyone. I am saying that if you're going to be a pedant, you should at least be pedant about facts which are actually correct. If Unknown Soldier can't be bothered to look up any of these "facts" before posting them, what's the point of the thread?

Indeed, if I'm not allowed to point out that their facts are wrong, what is there to discuss? Were we all just supposed to nod our heads, and go "You are soooo right, man! Well, that sure was good discussion. Good night."

Sorry dude, pedantic is as pedantic does.

snooty
adjective
informal
adjective: snooty; comparative adjective: snootier; superlative adjective: snootiest

1. showing disapproval or contempt toward others, especially those considered to belong to a lower social class.
   "snooty neighbors"

You don't need anyon'e permission to post within the TOE. However the Mranda warning applies, anything you say can and will be used against you. Likewise no one has to conform to oiur standrrds regdless of how you think. It cuts bioh ways.

 

[atrib]

If you're going to evangelize for "sciencey-ness", you should at least learn the important habit of citing your sources.

You don't need to cite sources for information that is widely known and well established. For example, I would not include a citation to demonstrate that the unit weight of water is about 1 gm/cc at room temperature or that acceleration due to gravity at MSL is about 32.2 ft/sec^2 in a paper or research report that relied on this information. At least not in the engineering and physics communities - it may be different in the arts.