RE: Daystar
November 18, 2008 at 5:04 pm
(This post was last modified: November 18, 2008 at 5:10 pm by Daystar.)
Luke, I agree with your position on creation in the schools. It shouldn't be taught for three reasons. 1) It would be too difficult to present a fair and unbiased teaching on the subject and 2) No one really knows if we were created or not, and 3) I don't trust teachers to teach their way out of a paper bag.
Religion has, in the past, had a conflict with science because religion used to have the power to enforce its sort of myopic interpretation of scripture especially when it disagreed with the Bible. Today, those misrepresenting the Bible continue to do so.
Why is science potentially more dangerous than religion? Many people have killed in the name of God through religion, and for the most part that has been thinly veiled through political means granted to religion.
The same could easily apply to science but I think that the destruction science brings is through the technology and biological applications of political necessities. We are far more likely to be destroyed by means of science than religion.
The 'days' of the Bible were not literal 24 hour periods, they were unknown periods of time. The geological evidence of a flood could very well be there floods have been mistaken for glaciers etc. in the past. Science won't give any evidence they find of a global deluge to the Bible, they would say it was something else because they think that the Bible is myth.
What interests me is that you want me to answer your question without using scripture because you wouldn't consider that as 'evidence.' I would like you to tell me if primitive people around the earth who have had discoveries of paintings on cave walls hunted buffalo without using their paintings as evidence.
I was giving instruction. I see political affiliation or tendency as pretty much the same. I have some pretty weird ideas about what religion is, apparently, and should have learned to keep them to myself. It tends to cause a great deal of distraction.
Religion to me is organized gatherings to one unified and common purpose. It doesn't have to have a deity.
Religious thought is different. It is simply a strict set of beliefs adhered to. Everyone is religious.
Religion has, in the past, had a conflict with science because religion used to have the power to enforce its sort of myopic interpretation of scripture especially when it disagreed with the Bible. Today, those misrepresenting the Bible continue to do so.
Why is science potentially more dangerous than religion? Many people have killed in the name of God through religion, and for the most part that has been thinly veiled through political means granted to religion.
The same could easily apply to science but I think that the destruction science brings is through the technology and biological applications of political necessities. We are far more likely to be destroyed by means of science than religion.
The 'days' of the Bible were not literal 24 hour periods, they were unknown periods of time. The geological evidence of a flood could very well be there floods have been mistaken for glaciers etc. in the past. Science won't give any evidence they find of a global deluge to the Bible, they would say it was something else because they think that the Bible is myth.
What interests me is that you want me to answer your question without using scripture because you wouldn't consider that as 'evidence.' I would like you to tell me if primitive people around the earth who have had discoveries of paintings on cave walls hunted buffalo without using their paintings as evidence.
(November 18, 2008 at 4:47 pm)lukec Wrote:(November 18, 2008 at 11:12 am)Daystar Wrote: The majority of you militant Atheists are political. Unite and organize as a 'religion.'
Do you mean united and organized? Or are you giving instructions...
Either way, political affiliation or tendency does not equal religiousness. Could you give your definition of "religion"?
I was giving instruction. I see political affiliation or tendency as pretty much the same. I have some pretty weird ideas about what religion is, apparently, and should have learned to keep them to myself. It tends to cause a great deal of distraction.
Religion to me is organized gatherings to one unified and common purpose. It doesn't have to have a deity.
Religious thought is different. It is simply a strict set of beliefs adhered to. Everyone is religious.
