Science is less concerned with who made the rules as how they work and how to use them. Religion is less concerned with how rules work than who made them and why.

Wether a simulation or a creation of a divine or advanced or extra dimensional being- the universe is a system with observable rules. It makes sense. As much as we can empathize with a universe, any system we create would have patterns and rules, so a complex self regulating and long lived system like a universe has rules. Science is our study of what those rules are and how to make them work for us. Religion is a theology about who made the rules.

It could be simply a force we don’t recognize yet, a reaction of elements that no longer exist or are extremely rare, some process we do not yet understand. Or it could be a simulation, or we could all be living in a science project or in “mold” on a huge giants wall, or a god or gods could have willed it or whatever. We do not know. No one knows. There is no answer and so there isn’t a wrong answer to the question at present. And in the end- religion doesn’t invalidate science or vice versa.

So a one guess is as good as any as to how this all around us started. About the point of “genesis” at which the universe we know was formed and how that happened. We know there is some type of “beginning” to things, but what was it that in the still and nothingness started the fort movements and reactions that would become all that is?

With a pen pal or say- me, you know something has to be behind these words. You know they didn’t spontaneously pop into being. A series of events and chemistry and physics and history led up to this correspondence. We look at the universe and we know that things don’t just happen with complete randomness- or if they do there are a lot of coincidences. Physics tells us that certain things happen and we can repeat those things. There is much we don’t know though and probably never will.

So how does one prove they love another person asides to say they do? How do we prove another person loves us? We really ant do so objectively and with certainty. So instead of statistical ad scientific analysis we use our experiences and perceptions to satisfy our own burden of proof we find acceptable. A god is no different. Like a pen pal or online friend the only concrete physical proof you have they even exist is words that may or may not be written by the person they are attributed to.

You also can’t use science to prove a person loves you. You can measure hormone levels and responses and apply various sciences to interpret those things- but we have no definitive and precise way to scientifically quantify love of any particular type. We can measure arousal, but a bumpy bus ride can also cause arousal without one loving a bus, and humans certainly can have sex or attraction without love. Likewise bonding hormones don’t denote love either necessarily. Our bodies also release those with inanimate objects, animals, family members, and romantic partners. So the line there an get blurry too.

And we can’t use science to prove their is a god- not with our current science. No one has ever devised an experiment which could comprehensively search the totality of existence. The closest we would et would be to say science has no conclusive evidence of a god using the scientific method. So- it becomes more abstract. For example:

Quite literally they have several other choices besides accept it. They an of course, reject it. Beyond that they can question it as well. Both agnostics and the religious often question and search for some level of evidence they feel justifies belief or rejection. We cant treat the concept of a god scientifically because... it’s simply outside science as we know it. You literally cannot price there is no god, you can’t use science to prove a negative ever. You can only say findings support a hypothesis or not.

So when it comes to “imaginary friends” most of us are our own imaginary friends anyway, living in our own “imaginary” version of the world where our biases shape the fundamental way we see and think and interact with the world. So regardless of belief or even existence of religion, the primary use of theology is in imparting cultural values and morality more than it is about anything else. Wether those things were created by a human or a supernatural being to do so isn’t really relevant on that context.

Now- of bias both tend towards several. Self serving bias- “it’s easier/more pleasant to believe this than that.” “This answer suits me better..”
Bandwagon bias “all these people are saying this so..” “I want to fit in with these people so...” and etc. but spirituality is ultimately a personal choice one must decide for themselves. What if any beliefs they choose to hold are up to our own life experiences and biases and selves to determine.

Religion and Atheism are the same. Both are religion. religion is simply a system of faith defining our world view. Without evidence science has hypothesis. I “think” not “I know..” and atheism is the claim to knowing their is no god- but one can’t prove a negative and thus there is no scientific means to knowing, therefore the conclusion there is no god is taken on faith.

So wether you believe in a god or leprechauns or ghosts or believe in yourself or even simply believe reality is real and not a dream or simulation; you are being influenced by bias and someone else would look at the same data and think you’re a fool.

The point is we each see the world from one perspective based on life experience and filter information based on our expectations of what we think the world SHOULD look like and ignore or invalidate things that would disrupt our world view as much as possible at a conscious and sub conscious level.

Wether one believes in a god or not isn’t relevant to the idea. We can use only science without morality or anything else to justify it. People suffer many biases and fallacies. Confirmation bias, selection bias, anchoring bias, reporting bias, sunk cost fallacy, dunning Krueger, it’s a long list that we could keep going of common cognitive bias.

As an example- if one were alive in Nazi Germany, one could undoubtably find a restaurant serving food which adhered to certain principals or even could be considered entirely “Kosher.” Given the setting it would be very unlikely that any public eatery would intentionally serve Kosher food- however certain principals of Kosher eating are not exclusive to Judaism, and some are just by their nature. For instance most any vegetarian dishes, free of bugs and if prepared so that the utensils and tools used in its making weren’t also used for meat or dairy, can be considered kosher (depending on the sect of Judaism.) so we COULD say this restaurant was following Kosher practices- but the fact some or even all their dishes are Kosher would be a combination of coincidence and confluence.

On the subject of “100’s of courts in the west..” West is relative. What “West” is he even talking about? And “100’s..?” When he says courts does he mean physical buildings or Judgeships? Some large districts have hundreds of courts and a single court can have many dozens of Judgeships in the US alone- and that doesn’t count “western” countries that are Muslim majority like those we in the “far west” consider “east” but are “west” from the “Far East” perspective. And not withstanding- is his statement that these courts are Shari’a courts- or that like most systems of law certain principals are shared so by default in a statistical sampling of rulings a certain number from most any court will coincide with those that another court would make in the same circumstance?

Ok. So my comment above talks about this guy a little more. But- he doesn’t believe in “Islamophobia.” He’s on record saying it doesn’t exist. So he can’t call a person an islamaphobe by his own logic. What’s more- he’s also on record saying that integration is different cultures remaining unchanged but living together in peace based on things in common. By his own philosophy not following Islam isn’t the same thing as rejecting it- he’s gas lighting and using straw men arguments to puff himself up. To those afraid of the dark and lacking the knowledge to make a light- a garbage fire serves just as well as a shining beacon to them. It’s not quite the same though.

I don’t think Tawhidi understands. His supposed degree in religion has already been debunked by the school which states he couldn’t even finish a 2 year lower degree and was dropped for poor performance with “no academic progress.” Let alone complete an advanced degree as he claims. His claims of being any sort of accredited imam have only been even remotely backed by 2 close friends of his in an investigation he paid for himself- but no council of imams has claimed him as recognized. His logic is circular bullshit and like he often does- this tweet has been since deleted because he just likes to shit in the pool and then run away and pretend it didn’t happen.

... we can also argue that most of the time we don’t need to eat fish or Jamal’s we kill for food and could survive with other food sources. Leather and other decorative or non essential items are commonly take. From animals we kill for no other purpose or who we just allocate the “left overs” after the fact. So one may or may not deem it cruel but most of us can hardly say we aren’t as guilty as he is of being cruel in similar fashion.

Well- there’s a philosophical quandary here. People catch and kill fish for no reason, or to use as decorations. Wether one considered that cruel personally or not is individual. Then again- what of fish harvested for use in industrial lubricants or as medicine or food additives? A common emulsifier used in things like milk shakes is made by killing huge cats of tiny organisms and grinding the “skeletons” they leave behind. So wether out of necessity or just for our enjoyment we routinely kill fish to use for things other than food- and while on the subject...