Good post, Daystar- thanks for responding so clearly.
Ok, so everyone is religious, according to your definition. Ok, that is including literally everyone, from nihilists to animists. And ok, that's your own interpretation. But I think that in general, the connotation of "religious" implies a spirtual (and not necessarily deity-based, but usually) idea, and perhaps that is where the confusion arises. I would certainly have to include myself in your definition of religious, because I adhere to a set of beliefs- but my not believing in god is only a facet of my beliefs. For example
1. There is no god
2. Red is the best color for a car
3. Tomatos taste awful
These are three (simple) beliefs of mine, but they are only a small part of all the things I believe. I also don't believe in smoking, for example, but I know there are atheists who smoke. There must be other things I do NOT have in common with other atheists, so I take issue with your idea that "the majority of you militant Atheists are political."
Further, by defining religion as a strict set of beliefs, considering how few people share exactly the same beliefs, I wonder how many people are actually in the exact same religion? My point is your definition is too vague, I think, for this kind of discussion.
Next, I'm glad you don't think creation should be taught in schools, and I assume you mean science classrooms. I personally think creation should be taught in schools, in a religious studies class or a history class which look at diverse creation stories.
I definitely agree that there have been times when religion has been used as a reason to start a conflict. However, it is also true that there have been wars solely fought because of religions. That is the difference I spoke of. Yes, perhaps the products of science are dangerous, but they are only so in the hands of those who’d do harm to others, with intent or not. But truly, when you speak of being destroyed by means of science, they used science in religious wars as well- crossbows, for example, is a technology used to kill. But the major issue is the reason for the killing. Religious persecution is a real problem, with the example of the Holocaust being the most obvious. But I cannot see a country going to war with another or a man stabbing his neighbour because they did not believe the same thing about thermodynamics.
The evidence for a global flood is not something that would be mistaken. We are talking about a very thick layer of silt/mud that would be laid down over all the landmasses at the exact same level. This has simply not been found. There is no evidence, right now, for a global flood that happened in the last 6-10 thousand years (estimate according to genealogies in the bible of elapsed time since Adam and Eve). There is just not a layer like this, and not because of mistaken evidence.
The reason I want evidence which is not scriptural is because the Bible is to me simply a very old book. So is the Illiad, the Kuran, etc. As for cave paintings, they are indeed evidence that ancient people hunted buffalo, but they are not proof- they support the evidence corroborated by other pieces- such as tools and weapons found near the site. Further, there are old drawings and paintings and stories of horrible monsters, and for creation stories which rival the biblical one. Older ones, from Babylonia and Sumer, have been found- are they proof to you of all the things they speak of?
Ok, so everyone is religious, according to your definition. Ok, that is including literally everyone, from nihilists to animists. And ok, that's your own interpretation. But I think that in general, the connotation of "religious" implies a spirtual (and not necessarily deity-based, but usually) idea, and perhaps that is where the confusion arises. I would certainly have to include myself in your definition of religious, because I adhere to a set of beliefs- but my not believing in god is only a facet of my beliefs. For example
1. There is no god
2. Red is the best color for a car
3. Tomatos taste awful
These are three (simple) beliefs of mine, but they are only a small part of all the things I believe. I also don't believe in smoking, for example, but I know there are atheists who smoke. There must be other things I do NOT have in common with other atheists, so I take issue with your idea that "the majority of you militant Atheists are political."
Further, by defining religion as a strict set of beliefs, considering how few people share exactly the same beliefs, I wonder how many people are actually in the exact same religion? My point is your definition is too vague, I think, for this kind of discussion.
Next, I'm glad you don't think creation should be taught in schools, and I assume you mean science classrooms. I personally think creation should be taught in schools, in a religious studies class or a history class which look at diverse creation stories.
(November 18, 2008 at 5:04 pm)Daystar Wrote: 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.
I definitely agree that there have been times when religion has been used as a reason to start a conflict. However, it is also true that there have been wars solely fought because of religions. That is the difference I spoke of. Yes, perhaps the products of science are dangerous, but they are only so in the hands of those who’d do harm to others, with intent or not. But truly, when you speak of being destroyed by means of science, they used science in religious wars as well- crossbows, for example, is a technology used to kill. But the major issue is the reason for the killing. Religious persecution is a real problem, with the example of the Holocaust being the most obvious. But I cannot see a country going to war with another or a man stabbing his neighbour because they did not believe the same thing about thermodynamics.
The evidence for a global flood is not something that would be mistaken. We are talking about a very thick layer of silt/mud that would be laid down over all the landmasses at the exact same level. This has simply not been found. There is no evidence, right now, for a global flood that happened in the last 6-10 thousand years (estimate according to genealogies in the bible of elapsed time since Adam and Eve). There is just not a layer like this, and not because of mistaken evidence.
The reason I want evidence which is not scriptural is because the Bible is to me simply a very old book. So is the Illiad, the Kuran, etc. As for cave paintings, they are indeed evidence that ancient people hunted buffalo, but they are not proof- they support the evidence corroborated by other pieces- such as tools and weapons found near the site. Further, there are old drawings and paintings and stories of horrible monsters, and for creation stories which rival the biblical one. Older ones, from Babylonia and Sumer, have been found- are they proof to you of all the things they speak of?
