Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I think one point a lot of people are missing is that the until the Second Coming and if God is what the Bible says he is (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent etc...) then no matter how far humanity goes in terms of science or understanding the physical realm that God being God will be able to make himself undetectable by any mortal means anyhow. He lets us choose whether or not to follow him because if he appeared before us (which considering our inherent sin and mortality wouldn't be able to comprehend his full divinity which could very well lead to head explosions) it would take away the option of free will of choosing a life for yourself or one for God. Now obviously this brings up the question of whether or not there is free will but I seriously doubt most people will try to say that you are in no way accountable for your own actions. Furthermore, I think it is fair to say that at some level this favour God has towards free-will rather than having mindless obedient automatons is made up by us being made in his image as creative autonomous beings. Hell even a third of the angels fell and they knew of God's divinity and they don't get a chance like we did. Hell is just a fulfillment of people who don't want anything to do with God as it is an area devoid of his presence where your only company are with people that roam from unrepentant hedonists to genocidal maniacs.

 TheSaintofKilllers wrote:
I didn't make a claim......

You posted seemingly in support of certain religious claism; my point is that it is the remit of the claimant to support their claim rather than anyone elses to refute it. Especially when no proof is offered to support said claim.

But regardless Mankind is very new in its scientific knowledge.

In some ways, certainly. However look at how much we have discovered in such a short time. I guess actually working, studying and attempting to understand has done more for humanity than prayer and (re)interpreting and rewriting a couple of books over and over again.

Far too new to even disprove God's chilling only 50 light years away.

I'm sorry, but you have lost me here...

Someday in the far future Humanity may become "Gods" themselves. Look at all the stuff that we are doing now that just 100 years ago we thought that only "God" could do.

 tigonesskay wrote:
Someday in the far future Humanity may become "Gods" themselves. Look at all the stuff that we are doing now that just 100 years ago we thought that only "God" could do.

Definitely.

Take a man with an iPad, a car, and a gun, back in time a couple thousand years, and he'd be a God in very little time indeed.


At the time of the Ark of the Covenant's construction, if those things that are said about it are true*** (its ability to flash with lightning and apparently sometimes kill on contact), it must have seemed a miracle from God made manifest.

Now we know how certain materials can be made to interact with static electricity charges, building an object to hold and then discharge an electrical charge is to a modern mind an extremely mundane thing, a plaything of children. It would be laughable to claim such a thing as being divine.


***And since there's zero archeological evidence for the Exodus, they're probably not true, or at least grandly exaggerated. But let's assume they are true for the purpose of this thought experiment.

Was a hardened atheist but found my salvation in Jesus Christ
Any questions, comments or anything pm me I will be more than happy to discuss intellectually

Atheist. Its the only thing that makes sense to me. I wont believe anything else without evidence, why exclude god. That being said, each to their own.

 BlackOps wrote:
Atheist. Its the only thing that makes sense to me. I wont believe anything else without evidence, why exclude god. That being said, each to their own.

I've never seen snow
But in all seriousness a brand of science I call "grandiose science" (faster than light travel, how many atoms are in the universe, consciousness being a dimension , what relationship space and time really share (changes almost yearly), Bending space and time, dimensional travel, Accurate mapping of the expansion of the universe over time) is based on no evidence once so ever and is entirely conjecture and theory.
We don't know gak as a species, and so it's silly to take the view you're taking.

 TheSaintofKilllers wrote:
I've never seen snow

I have seen snow, but even if you have not, snow is an observable, physical thing that you could easily go and see for yourself at any time.

But in all seriousness a brand of science I call "grandiose science" (faster than light travel, how many atoms are in the universe, consciousness being a dimension , what relationship space and time really share (changes almost yearly), Bending space and time, dimensional travel, Accurate mapping of the expansion of the universe over time) is based on no evidence once so ever and is entirely conjecture and theory.

Actually a most of your so called "grandiose science" is based in reality. Some of it is even testable. Even the highly theoretical stuff can be examined by others and at least tested for rigour.

We don't know gak as a species, and so it's silly to take the view you're taking.

Ah, I see... so because we don't know everything in the universe, we can't say that some things are so vanishingly improbable they essentially have no chance of existing? We can't say that if you have some outlandish concept, such as a magical unicorn flying through space controlling all actions in the universe with magical dust it shoots out of its butt it is up to you to put forward some kind of evidence that it exists rather than relying on some kind of knowledge gap defence and being able to say "well, you can't prove it doesn't exist! LA LA LA I'M NOT LISTENING!".

And we know enough about the universe to say that what exists and how it functions does not require a god, that what exists and how it functions shows no evidence of there being, or having been, a god.

You want to believe some insane gibberish, go for it. Believe whatever you want. Most places allow freedom of belief (at least to an extent), but don't suggest that science and religion share the same kind of underpinnings, or that "science can't explain everything yet so we are right!" because unfortunately that is not how the world works.

Edit: Fixed quotes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grimskul wrote:
I think one point a lot of people are missing is that the until the Second Coming and if God is what the Bible says he is (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent etc...) then no matter how far humanity goes in terms of science or understanding the physical realm that God being God will be able to make himself undetectable by any mortal means anyhow. He lets us choose whether or not to follow him because if he appeared before us (which considering our inherent sin and mortality wouldn't be able to comprehend his full divinity which could very well lead to head explosions) it would take away the option of free will of choosing a life for yourself or one for God. Now obviously this brings up the question of whether or not there is free will but I seriously doubt most people will try to say that you are in no way accountable for your own actions. Furthermore, I think it is fair to say that at some level this favour God has towards free-will rather than having mindless obedient automatons is made up by us being made in his image as creative autonomous beings. Hell even a third of the angels fell and they knew of God's divinity and they don't get a chance like we did. Hell is just a fulfillment of people who don't want anything to do with God as it is an area devoid of his presence where your only company are with people that roam from unrepentant hedonists to genocidal maniacs.

So, you have any proof at all that anything you have just said even vaguely approaches reality?

Every time I want to make a reply to something here, I end up being flooded with incandescent rage at the willing and intentional ignorance... and I don't mean the ignorance of science, I mean, ignorance and inconsistency of the very content of the idea being suggested. No self-referential fact checking, no attempt to generate any kind of internal consistency at all and preposterous arguments that if followed through from their source to conclusion with all facts line up come out as nonsense, untrue or simply BS.

This is about all I can write without ending up with a 30+ paragraph response comprised almost exclusively of sarcastic non-constructive remarks.......

 Grimskul wrote:
I think one point a lot of people are missing is that the until the Second Coming

Jesus says in the Bible he'll come back before everyone then alive had died.
He didn't come back, so either he lied when he promised his followers he'd return in ~30 years, or he didn't actually have the power to come back to life at all (Guess which one I think is more likely).

and if God is what the Bible says he is (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent etc...) then no matter how far humanity goes in terms of science or understanding the physical realm that God being God will be able to make himself undetectable by any mortal means anyhow.

What kind of horrible God would do that?

To give actual evidence of his existence to some iron age Palestinian peasants, but then start hiding and expect everyone else to take it on trust?
That's just pointlessly nasty behavior.

He lets us choose whether or not to follow him because if he appeared before us (which considering our inherent sin and mortality wouldn't be able to comprehend his full divinity which could very well lead to head explosions) it would take away the option of free will of choosing a life for yourself or one for God.

Free will clearly doesn't exist in the Christian model of the universe.

An omnipotent, omniscient Creator is incompatible with the idea of his creations having free will, because the creator's omniscience at the moment of Creation means the creator knows everything that will ever happen down to the tiniest detail (Jesus says God knows the number of hairs on your head) when he creates his Creation.

If he didn't know everything that would ever happen, he wouldn't be omniscient.

Either God knows everything, or God granted free will to his creations.
You don't get to have both, it's not logically self-consistent.

Now obviously this brings up the question of whether or not there is free will but I seriously doubt most people will try to say that you are in no way accountable for your own actions.

As an existentialist atheist, I don't actually know whether free will exists or not - and I'm comfortable not knowing.

Hell even a third of the angels fell and they knew of God's divinity and they don't get a chance like we did.

In the Christian model, God knew that a third of the Angels would turn against him at the moment he created them.
He always knew, and he was not surprised by their rebellion, because he knows everything.

Just because in the Christian myth God creates some creations that rebel against him, that does not prove free will exists in the Christian model of the universe.
It just proves that God made something to attack himself, presumably either in order to provide an instructional lesson to some of his creations, or simply because God enjoys creating things destined to go to eternal punishment in Hell.

Hell is just a fulfillment of people who don't want anything to do with God as it is an area devoid of his presence where your only company are with people that roam from unrepentant hedonists to genocidal maniacs.

Actually, according to the Christian model, the main criteria for getting into Heaven are:
1 - Belief in Jesus
2 - Repentance for sins

Under the Christian model of the afterlife, the most brutal Christian Serial killers get admitted to Heaven as long as they repent before they die (plenty do), and Buddhist saints go to Hell (because they don't believe in Jesus).


Random aside:
If the Bible didn't so relentlessly tell you God was the good one, and Satan was the bad one, would you be able to come to that conclusion just by reading the text?
I'm not so sure.
Consider Genesis.

- God creates everything (and bear in mind he knows everything, so he already knows everything that's about to happen)
- God tells Eve that if she eats the fruit of the tree of knowledge, she will die (this is a lie)
- The Snake tells Eve that if she eats the fruit of the tree of knowledge, she will gain sentience (this is the truth)
- Eve eats the fruit, and gains sentience. Her beau Adam also takes a bite.
- God is pissed. The Angels are pissed, and ask God to kick Eve & Adam out of the garden of Eden, not as punishment, but so that they don't also eat a fruit from the tree of eternal life and become like angels.
- God agrees with the angels and kicks Adam and Eve out of the garden of Eden.
- God curses Eve (and all her daughters throughout the rest of time) with extremely painful childbirths for the sin of not believing God's lie.
- God curses the snake to lose its legs, for the sin of telling the truth to Eve.

How do you read that story, and come away thinking God is the good guy?

Might as well throw that up for discussion:

Source

Hey atheists, let’s make a deal
Opinion by Rachel Held Evans, special to CNN

(CNN) – Famed atheist Richard Dawkins has been rightfully criticized this week for saying the “mild pedophilia” he and other English children experienced in the 1950s “didn’t cause any lasting harm.”

This comes after an August tweet in which Dawkins declared that “all the world’s Muslims have fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge. They did great things in the Middle Ages, though.”

Dawkins is known for pushing his provocative rhetorical style too far, providing ample ammunition for his critics, and already I’ve seen my fellow Christians seize the opportunity to rail against the evils of atheism.

As tempting as it is to classify Dawkins’ views as representative of all atheists, I can’t bring myself to do it.

I can’t bring myself to do it because I know just how frustrating and unfair it is when atheists point to the most extreme, vitriolic voices within Christianity and proclaim that they are representative of the whole.

So, atheists, I say we make a deal: How about we Christians agree not to throw this latest Richard Dawkins thing in your face and you atheists agree not to throw the next Pat Robertson thing in ours?

Now I’m not saying we just let these destructive words and actions go—not at all. It’s important for both believers and atheists to decry irresponsible views and hateful rhetoric, especially from within our own communities.

(Believe me. There are plenty of Christians who raise hell every time Robertson says something homophobic or a celebrity pastor somewhere says something misogynistic.)

But what if we resist the urge to use the latest celebrity gaffe as an excuse to paint one another with broad brushes?

What if, instead of engaging the ideas of the most extreme and irrational Christians and atheists, we engaged the ideas of the most reasonable, the most charitable, the most respectful and respected?

Only then can we avoid these shallow ad hominem attacks and instead engage in substantive debates that bring our true differences and our true commonalities to light.

It’s harder to go this route, and it takes more work and patience, but I’m convinced that both Christians and atheists are interested in the truth and in searching for it with integrity, without taking the easy way out.

Pope Francis took a step in that direction this week with a letter in a Rome newspaper responding directly to questions posed by its atheist director and inviting respectful open dialog between nonbelievers and Christians.

So, yes, Richard Dawkins is an atheist. But so are authors Greg Epstein and Susan Jacoby. So is my friend and fellow blogger Hemant Mehta. So is Sir Ian McKellen. So is ethicist Peter Singer, who may or may not be the best example.

And yes, Pat Robertson is a Christian. But so is Nelson Mandela. So is acclaimed geneticist Francis Collins. So is Nobel Peace Prize winner Leymah Gbowee. So is Barack Obama. So is Stephen Colbert.

And I'm willing to bet that the same collective groan emitted by millions of Christians each time Pat Robertson says something embarrassing on TV sounds a lot like the collective groan emitted by millions of atheists when Richard Dawkins rants on Twitter.

Still, in the end, it’s not about who has the most charismatic or generous personalities in their roster, nor about who has the most “crazies.” It’s about the truth.

So let’s talk about the truth, and with the people who most consistently and graciously point us toward it.

Rachel Held Evans is the author of "A Year of Biblical Womanhood" and "Evolving in Monkey Town." Evans blogs at rachelheldevans.com, and the views expressed in this column belong to her.

How about we Christians agree not to throw this latest Richard Dawkins thing in your face and you atheists agree not to throw the next Pat Robertson thing in ours?

I go for the claims of religion, rather than the claims of religious people.

As the author states, it's all to easy to point at religious loonies and laugh. The real challenge is in looking at the basic religious claims themselves, and working out just how self-contradictory and incompatible with reality they are.

I don't think anything Dawkins says in his abrupt, possibly insulting way is any where near as embarrassing as the things Pat Robertson comes out with.
I'm a big fan of Dawkins, I think most of what he says is great.

A great quote I read, unfortunately I can't remember who said it, is "If the fundamentalists are wrong, then there is something wrong with the fundamentals."

If Pat Robertson and other fundamental Christians say things embarrassing, then there must be something embarrassing about the fundamental Christianity that they're adhering to.
Same goes for all religions.

 Shredder wrote:
"If the fundamentalists are wrong, then there is something wrong with the fundamentals."

Not really, since the 'fundamentals' they stick to are usually the worst bits all rolled together, ignoring the good, kind parts.

 motyak wrote:

 Shredder wrote:
"If the fundamentalists are wrong, then there is something wrong with the fundamentals."

Not really, since the 'fundamentals' they stick to are usually the worst bits all rolled together, ignoring the good, kind parts.

if one picks and chooses only the rosy parts, not only does one not really hold that faith, i find it hard to respect a person that says that they adhere to that faith but disagree with X. I'm fine with splinter sects, because the members of those splinters adhere to the tenets of those splinters. What I have a problem with are people who, for example, say they are Christians, and then spout off every reason why they are really socially well adjusted agnostics that go to church on sundays in order to appease relatives, neighbours and friends.

the trick is that fundamentalists are trying to remind you of your duties as a good X. It's why jesus was killed. He was--assuming that he was in fact real, and not the fabrication of the same kind of process that gives us narratives involving greek and roman pantheons, and, to a degree, books of the bible long-since discarded for whatever reason--a fundamentalist jew, and the cosmopolitan and Romanized jews in the cities happened to not care so much for all that old junk. There's a little more to it than just dismissing the extremists because they don't share your view or because it's inconvenient to have to deal with them for whatever reason. Dismissing fundamentalists would also require dismissing the faith itself. It's those very same fundamentals that make up, say, the entirety of christianity, though it's disagreements over those same fundamentals that establishes the different sects. Note that it isn't dismissal, but differing interpretation.

 motyak wrote:

 Shredder wrote:
"If the fundamentalists are wrong, then there is something wrong with the fundamentals."

Not really, since the 'fundamentals' they stick to are usually the worst bits all rolled together, ignoring the good, kind parts.

I prefer the label "literalists" to "fundamentalists", since that's what they do, they take their holy books seriously.


When they see Jesus condoning slavery in the New Testament, they say "Jesus thinks Slavery is fine". And here's the kicker: they're right.

Jesus does condone slavery. And he does compare God's relationship to his humans to a master who beats his slaves. Likewise, Muslim literalists aren't rooting around in the Quran to find the occasional passage that they can mis-translate in order to justify their politics - they're just taking the words of their God as written down in the Quran and taking them seriously - the Quran does command Muslims to strike off heads and fingertips of unbelievers, the New Testament does condone slavery, the Old Testament does say that people who try to change their religion should be immediately killed.

It takes revisionism, ignoring or intentionally mis-translating huge parts of the "holy" text in order to make the moral lessons of the "holy" books actually moral for today's society.


For example:
The Tenth Commandment in the Ten Commandments refers to not coveting thy neighbour's slaves.
Then the passages immediately after the Ten Commandments give extensive and explicit rules on when and how to take slaves, how to treat them (you may beat them as long as they don't die), and who gets to own your slaves when you die (your children inherit them).

How can one begin to pretend that is part of a moral worldview unless you intentionally mis-translate "slaves" as "servants" (as most english translations do) in the Ten Commandments, and simply ignore the following passages about taking and owning slaves?

These were the passages that were used to justify American slavery as late as the 1860's, less than 150 years ago... there are a small handful of old people alive today who are children of people who fought in that war.

So in order to be a moral religious person, one has to ignore the vast tracks of unambiguous evil to be found in the religious books.

But by the same token, how can you claim to be a follower of a religion, if you do ignore the parts that you don't like? You're ignoring the direct commands of the God you claim to hold holy and eternally moral.
It is hypocritical behaviour, IMO.

Atheist, because Chaos is not yet a recognised religion. Just kidding. Maybe

I just don't want to believe in any of your gods or deities. I don't wamt them, need them or wish to have anything to do with them. I've gotten this far without worshipping and my policy is; If the system works, don't feth with it!

Closest I would say would be pagan. I don't believe in deities or greater powers in the way most organized religions put it. Basically my views are you can believe what you want just don't proselytize and scaremonger others and that religion should have no contact or influence on how a country is run.

What?? No Jedi?

I had some Jehovah's Witnesses knock on my door yesterday. I had a nice little chat with them.
I told them I was atheist and we talked a bit about how the universe was created and how could life have come about. I told them the theory about anti-particles and how they cancel out energy so that the energy total at the beginning was nothing yet there was still something. However not being Leonard Krauss, I don't think I convinced them.
I think they will be back since I was interested in what they had to say. I think I'll invite them in for a cup of tea next time and really get stuck in. Wonder if I can convert them to atheism?
I must be crazy.

Atheist, but I couldn't judge a person less for their faith unless they made it a point to push it onto others, guilt trip people, etc.

More often than not I find men and women of faith to be good people who are easy to like, despite the bad some very few individuals do.

No adherents of the "God Emperor"?

If all science and religion was erased from the planet, and had to start again from scratch, science would discover the same things, whereas religion would (if it rose at all) be different to what we have now.
That alone disproves the concept to me.

I should be an agnostic, but I'm not. I'm really an atheist. This quote is from Howard Phillip Lovecraft, but the bold part pretty well explain my feeling on all religions I know :

All I say is that I think it is damned unlikely that anything like a central cosmic will, a spirit world, or an eternal survival of personality exist. They are the most preposterous and unjustified of all the guesses which can be made about the universe, and I am not enough of a hair-splitter to pretend that I don't regard them as arrant and negligible moonshine. In theory I am an agnostic, but pending the appearance of radical evidence I must be classed, practically and provisionally, as an atheist.

Now of course, I don't obviously share all of Lovecraft's idea (he was also a racist ), but this quote really sums up my idea on the subject. For me, being an atheist is not about not believing in god(s), because there is no definition of god outside of religions, it's just about seeing the very nature of religion as preposterous. Claiming to know something we have no way of knowing, with extremely dubious argument, is a credibility-killer to me. Not to mention how those things almost always end up being pretty specific and looking like ad-hoc additions .

Troike wrote:I'm very atheist. Though I've ended up playing as what is essentially the church in 40K, which in hindsight is kinda funny.

It's really not surprising, though. If you were religious, the Sisters would not only be heretics to you ( ), but would also portray the worse part of religion. Not something you would want to be reminded about. I mean, except if you were actually a frothing xenophobic zealot ready to kill anyone not agreeing with him. But then again, the whole “Sisters are heretics” thing would come even more into play.
I tend to believe the proportion of atheists and militant atheists among Sisters player outweigh by far their proportion among 40k players in general.

TheSaintofKilllers wrote:But in all seriousness a brand of science I call "grandiose science" (faster than light travel, how many atoms are in the universe, consciousness being a dimension , what relationship space and time really share (changes almost yearly), Bending space and time, dimensional travel, Accurate mapping of the expansion of the universe over time) is based on no evidence once so ever and is entirely conjecture and theory.

Except anyone believe science's role is to give us truth certainly has slept during the whole 20th century. Science is about finding a good enough model. Something that match all the possible observations. And among all the possible theories that do match all observations, we are going toward those that allows to predict as many things as possible. And then we look at the most plausible ones.
But really, if truth meant anything to science, we would have gave up on classical mechanics as soon as we would have found out they were false (and consequentially, likely all have gone mad). We didn't, because it was a good enough approximation in most case. Just like it's replacement are likely just good enough approximation for a theory that we will discover later, which in turn will be an approximation, and so on.
I seriously don't understand how anyone could pretend to know some truth about the way reality functions after classical mechanics' basic principle turned out to be false despite how much they made perfect sense and perfectly described all we could ever every hope to experience. And if those people base their claims on old books, and old traditions, and “inner revelations”, and “common sense”…

 marv335 wrote:
If all science and religion was erased from the planet, and had to start again from scratch, science would discover the same things, whereas religion would (if it rose at all) be different to what we have now.
That alone disproves the concept to me.

Except, you have no idea that that is true.

The nature of God and Truth, according to the Bible, were revealed to us through revelation. Your argument is right based on the assumtion that there is no God and no such thing as divine revelation. Congratulations.

 The Bringer wrote:
The nature of God and Truth, according to the Bible, were revealed to us through revelation. Your argument is right based on the assumtion that there is no God and no such thing as divine revelation. Congratulations.

So, you do mean his or her argument would only be true for every non-biblical religions (which are actually more than half of humanity even if you consider Islam and Bahaism as Biblical) ? Not so bad actually.

 d-usa wrote:
No adherents of the "God Emperor"?

It's an awesome religion. Flexible, too, since the Inquisition doesn't care how you worship the Emperor as long as you pay your tithes to the Administratum and fight for the Imperium when the time comes. All 11 of us Spehss Muslims on the board could be Spehss Mehreens, too! That'd be awesome.

 The Bringer wrote:

 marv335 wrote:
If all science and religion was erased from the planet, and had to start again from scratch, science would discover the same things, whereas religion would (if it rose at all) be different to what we have now.
That alone disproves the concept to me.

Except, you have no idea that that is true.

The nature of God and Truth, according to the Bible, were revealed to us through revelation. Your argument is right based on the assumtion that there is no God and no such thing as divine revelation. Congratulations.

Way to ignore the fact that not all religions are biblical.

And actually, there is some small degree of evidence that he's right - as human cultures have developed in different, isolated parts of the world, they have created unique, non-compatible religions: Pagan elemental beings, the Greco-Roman gods, the Hindu gods, the Viking gods, Native American spirit worship, the Judeo-Christian god, etc. This points to the fact that a human culture, without any outside influence doesn't tend to any one particular version of religion, and there's nothing to indicate that any religions created after this reset button is pressed would bear any indication to current ones except for YOUR assumption that scripture is true.

Whereas scientific principles that have made it as far as accepted theory are globally true, and would remain so after this 'event' that causes civilisation to start again (and would eventually be rediscovered).

TheSGC wrote:It's an awesome religion. Flexible, too, since the Inquisition doesn't care how you worship the Emperor as long as you pay your tithes to the Administratum and fight for the Imperium when the time comes.

Yeah… except if you are a mutant. Then, you are doomed to have a life that sucks.

 Riquende wrote:

Way to ignore the fact that not all religions are biblical.

I give 1 case when the argument is wrong, and the statement is disproven. Besides, there are many other religions that involve divine revelation.

 Riquende wrote:

And actually, there is some small degree of evidence that he's right - as human cultures have developed in different, isolated parts of the world, they have created unique, non-compatible religions: Pagan elemental beings, the Greco-Roman gods, the Hindu gods, the Viking gods, Native American spirit worship, the Judeo-Christian god, etc. This points to the fact that a human culture, without any outside influence doesn't tend to any one particular version of religion, and there's nothing to indicate that any religions created after this reset button is pressed would bear any indication to current ones except for YOUR assumption that scripture is true.

Everything you have said so far is "suggests". There is nothing concrete, far from it. I make no assumption. I am merely giving reasons why the blanket statement given is false, and the reasoning flawed.

And besides, you're wrong to says that human culture hasn't gravitated towards any religion, as Islam and Christianity are both the largest religion and share VERY similar roots. You can trace their roots back to 2 brothers. Saying that humans don't tend to any "version" of a religion is natural for any religion. There are many uncertainties in Christianity, for example, and although they are not crucial it does lead to what you might call "versions" of Christianity.

 Riquende wrote:

Whereas scientific principles that have made it as far as accepted theory are globally true, and would remain so after this 'event' that causes civilization to start again (and would eventually be rediscovered).

Does it look like I'm questioning this fact?