Cracking the Code

If evolution is true, there have never been any mistakes in natural processes. Therefore, there are no mistakes in nature—only comfort, discomfort, or boredom. And, what gives one discomfort is someone else’s happy place.

We have been influenced heavily to accept evolution with a Hebrew-rooted twist, a sense of good and evil as a product of law—that there is a right and a wrong (even in nature) and choosing sides has become accentuated by the spreading of the good news. But there are really no laws in nature.

If the abrahamic religions are true, we have to make a faith statement—that what is true is superior to what is known—that what is believed is superior to reason or logical conclusion. Or, that contradictions are a natural process of heaven.

If we assume for a moment that the Big Bang is exactly how it happened, that we evolved into this or that, it would also conclude that we are many that stemmed from one, that we are all connected by a common event. We are a herd-bound species. Is that a result of survival in evolution, or because out of the one we became the many? That our primordial state was singular.

If we are the result of a cataclysmic event, eventually collecting enough space debris and luck to form planets and galaxies, isn’t our inertial state that of a single mind (needs defining) as well?

We can make a faith statement, that our individuality is a result of evolution—that what was, is not what is. Or we can make another, like Christianity’s stance that we are all separate individuals responsible for our decisions, that it is you, a single soul, a separate ego here on sufferance, while simultaneously providing a place to gather. Its a neat trick to use fear to isolate and use that same fear to couple.

If one prefers to be Christian and believe in evolution, you have to say god used evolution as a means of creation, that should, eventually produce the children of god, then it should be easy to accept all the differences a billion years of biologic variations would produce in the human mind.

Working on the plumbing.

Scientific Points for Religion—The Switch

One of the interesting developments of religion is the attachment to scientific theory and advancement to suit their purposes. Evolution being the largest swing in recent memory, but also shoehorning bits and bobs of the Big Bang—calling out “god did it” and the insistence there had to be a first-cause to set it all in motion. It didn’t, and most likely there never was nothing.

Simple reason can point that out better than a god, and if anyone can display the ultimate in proving a negative—prove there was ever nothing… we obviously have these materials in front of us—more than you could ever say about a god. There’s no magicians trick here. The universe is a brute fact. Myth, however, is the true basis of religion, now making scientific claims using secular reasoning.

Even if per chance the world is a 3D simulation, there also then has to be a supreme all righteous omnipotent god at the helm, right? Pure bias is religion staking claims on what they had denied forever. When the curtain is pulled back we would most likely see a fossilized crazy scientist dead in his chair after working himself to the bone trying to fix his experiment that got away. Whatever discoveries man seems to find, religion has god in all his power drip-feeding advances to share his love.

The idea that a god has to be supremely infallible of perfect righteousness is a pipe dream of runaway human imagination. And imagine, is what we do quite well. Simply reading the scriptures shows us through unbelief—their construct of god is a prick—unless you imagine otherwise.

Which brings us to consensus. How many religious points do the atheist agree? None. How many points of science do the religious adopt hijack? Nearly all of them. Its not that hard when you have an actual model that produces results. Creationism Origins is the last puzzle to solve. What then will the believers do with their god? Another claim as part of the masters plan?