Ok, I'll try and put it simply for you
I'm suggesting a group of people isolated from all religious knowledge and text, that form a society based on science, where existential issues are answered with facts and theories, not stories. Would not create a religion for it's self.

Religions sprung up to answer fundamental questions about human existence and were manipulated for political gain; we can now answer many of those questions thus there is no need for religion. An isolated group of people with this point of view and without the weight of religious history upon them would most likely not create a new religion as they would have no need for it.
( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Thu 28 Feb 2013, 11:47, 1 reply, 12 years ago)

So what is the scientific explanation for why we are here?

( tangledupinblue hairy badge with moving eyes, Thu 28 Feb 2013, 11:51, Reply)

The incredibly lucky consequence of a incredibly unlikely string of incredible evolutionary coincidences
I don't see how that makes us less special than "some ineffable being wanted some monkeys to worship him".

Rather the opposite, in fact.
( Kroney, Thu 28 Feb 2013, 11:52, Reply)

Why, not how.

( tangledupinblue hairy badge with moving eyes, Thu 28 Feb 2013, 11:54, Reply)

"Why" and "how" are not mutually exclusive questions.

( Kroney, Thu 28 Feb 2013, 11:55, Reply)

No, they are usually tied together in religions.

( tangledupinblue hairy badge with moving eyes, Thu 28 Feb 2013, 11:59, Reply)

They're tied together in my answer above. It answers both "why" and "how"
Which is what I meant by not mutually exclusive.
( Kroney, Thu 28 Feb 2013, 12:02, Reply)

There are as many holes in that explanation as there are in the Garden of Eden story.

(PsychoChomp, Thu 28 Feb 2013, 12:02, Reply)

I'm lost by this

( sporters I’m sincerely gratitude to you, Thu 28 Feb 2013, 12:04, Reply)

Well big question for the christian creation myth "what was there before God?"
Has a direct equivilent of "What was before the big bang"
(PsychoChomp, Thu 28 Feb 2013, 12:08, Reply)

JOKE











Your head
( sporters I’m sincerely gratitude to you, Thu 28 Feb 2013, 12:16, Reply)

look you're tolling and that's fine.
but you know as well as we know, that while there may be holes in the scientific explanation for life, the universe etc scientists except the holes exist actively look to fill those holes with new knowledge and understanding.

religion says, "we don't know something therefore it was supernatural" which is igorant and lazy
( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Thu 28 Feb 2013, 12:07, Reply)

I'm not trolling.
Obviously I know that, but saying people won't turn to religion because they'll have a foundation in science to answer their questions. When there's a number of questions that either can not, or have not been answered by Science and you think your Island children will not fill in the blanks themselves?
(PsychoChomp, Thu 28 Feb 2013, 12:12, Reply)

I think they'll be too busy getting fucked on the local hallucinogens.

( tangledupinblue hairy badge with moving eyes, Thu 28 Feb 2013, 12:16, Reply)

not if you teach them that the blanks may one day be filled
in the same way that people 2000 years ago didn't understand disease (god is displeased), the universe (god made it from papier mache)or even how our bodies work(God does magik in my tummy)then in 2000 years maybe we will know what came before the big bang.

just becasue we don't know something, doesn't mean we never will
( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Thu 28 Feb 2013, 12:17, Reply)

Just because one doesn't exist, doesn't mean it won't exist and that knowledge gap should not be auto-filled by the supernatural
also, i would counter and say, why does there need to be a reason?
( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Thu 28 Feb 2013, 11:52, Reply)

In your original post you referred to 'extensional* questions'
Natural curiosity, that's why.


*I assumed you meant 'existential'
( tangledupinblue hairy badge with moving eyes, Thu 28 Feb 2013, 11:58, Reply)

you know what i mean by now...
Just because the question exists, doesn't mean that there is necessarily an answer.

It's a bit nihilistic, but there you go.
( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Thu 28 Feb 2013, 12:00, Reply)