But if you like to think that a science fiction writer can become a self-made prophet of a very succcessful religion, I think I don't need to name an example of exactly that which isn't exactly a heaven to "skepticism" and freedom overall.
What does this have to do with the scenario proposed?
The arbitrarity of it. It's just as likely for a religion to be created by a scifi writer who gives a damn about science and therefore creating "Battutism" (be it social creation or authoral), just like it is likely for a religion being created for the sole purpose of acquiring money.
There is no incentive for religions to be created with glamorous goals in mind. The only pressures they feel is to survive, not to serve mankind.
Of course, conceptually the never increasing tautology never ends, but in actuality, it does end. There is a point of diminishing returns where people simply stop believing in thunder god given the overwhelmingly better knowledge about weather that we ended up possessing.
How does this address the point at hand?
It does address if the criteria of dismissing a myth is to create a better alternative explanation. As I said, paranoid explanations are *always* possible. But I'd say that the thunder god is either contradicting science or he is reduced to literally white noise in the weather graphics.
Exactly. There. Thank you. It is *meaningless drivel*. So you see that science *can* talk about it, it can say it *is* meaningless drivel.
We do not; try reading it again more carefully.
I did. You conceded it without wanting to. I do not apologize for your choice of words

.
You pile your sins over christ and eat his blood and flesh. Then you are rendered absolved of your sins. I see nothing here that is moral. Even CS Lewis agrees with me, ffs.
Did you miss which religion we were discussing?
We were discussing a caricature of christianity. I just skipped the shenanigans and went for the real deal.
The exp.... Wow. Really? You think that the church is a force for good?
Did you miss which church we were discussing? It's a very bad sign if you begin to lose track of these things in favor of monolithic homogeneity.
Ah, sorry. We were discussing another wet dream of yours, where everything was superb and no harm was ever made by your invented religion.
There's a loophole in there. Can't you see it? It's when they, in all their science investigations, actually find out that you invented all the ninja ****. It's inevitable, since it is knowledge to be made, just like we know today the mish mash that the Bible actually is all about.
There was no such condition in the scenario; the religion arose socially in the distant past. Do you need additional clarification on the scenario?
No, I just call it rubbish. Even Christianity and Islam are clearly traceable by the
word to which author certain parts of their holy books are related to. We *know* the chronology of the books, the creation of certain beliefs, and how mistranslations from the original to the greek created mythologies around them (the most famous is of course the "virgin birth" one). We even know *why* they were written the way they were, for there were clear political reasons for them.
Why wouldn't a similar thing be possible within "Battutism"? Sure it could be. Some day one would find out the writings of a certain "General Battuta" and they would try to pin down where this idea was first formulated.
And then what? This you did not answer. Much easier just to wipe the mess under the carpet I guess.
Are there any other imprecisions I can help correct? I'm not getting paid any more so I'm just doing this for the benefit of the audience.
Oh my, I'm so sorry to waste your precious time. And here I was thinking that you were indeed getting paid for the giganormous glamour you were providing us all with. Should I knee before thee now?
It should be clarified for Luis Dias' benefit, in case he's working from one of the classic formulations of strong positivism, that those philosophies are as dead as they come. I'm working from something a bit more post-Popper here.
A clarification is required here. While I really enjoy the quotation I have provided you with, with no extra charge mind you, it has an historical incorrection. The philosophy to which the dear respected physicist aspires to was not defended by Popper himself, who denied assertively and repeatedly that he
wasn't a positivist. There is usually some confusion to this, since falsificationism is one of positivistic tools of science.
In that regard, I don't understand what you are saying about "post-Popper", and if you mean post-falsificationism, then sure, I am also "post-popper". If, however you mean something other then Idk exactly what.
This insight shared by Hawking is not, however, anything new of course. It has been common knowledge for the past 200 years for those who pay enough attention to these matters. Kant was almost there, but the one who really stands like a collossus in the proclamation of these self-evident post-religious truths is, of course, Nietzsche.
Here is a small concise work of him, which I think rather neatly encapsulates what I'm talking about. Free of charge!
1. The true world -- unattainable but for the sage, the pious, the virtuous man; he lives in it, he is it.
(The oldest form of the idea, relatively sensible, simple and persuasive. A circumlocution for the sentence, "I, Plato, am the truth.")
2. The true world -- unattainable for now, but promised for the sage, the pious, the virtuous man ("for the sinner who repents").
(Progress of the idea: it becomes more subtle, insidious, incomprehensible -- it becomes female, it becomes Christian.)
3. The true world -- unattainable, indemonstrable, unpromisable; but the very thought of it -- a consolidation, an obligation, an imperative.
(At bottom, the old sun, but seen through mist and skepticism. The idea has become elusive, pale, Nordic, Konigsbergian)
4. The true world -- unattainable? At any rate, unattained, and being unattained, also unknown. Consequently, not consoling, redeeming, or obligating: how could something unknown obligate us?
(Gray morning, The first yawn of reason. The cockcrow of positivism)
5. The "true" world -- an idea which is no longer good for anything, not even obligating -- an idea which has become useless and superfluous -- consequently a refuted idea: let us abolish it!
(Bright day; breakfast: return of bon sens and cheer-fulness; Plato's embarrassed blush; pandemonium of all free spirits.)
6. The true world -- we have abolished. What world has remained? The apparent one perhaps? But no! With the true world we also have abolished the apparent one.
(Noon: moment of the briefest shadow; end of the longest error; high point of humanity; INCIPIT ZARATHUSTRA.')
You're still apparently in step 4. Keep up with the times, for ****'s sake, you're 200 years late!!
