(November 20, 2008 at 5:03 am)allan175 Wrote:(November 19, 2008 at 1:50 pm)Daystar Wrote: How, though, is your view of religions the same as your view of supernatural? They are both bullshit? If so I could go halfway with you on that. Religion can easily be seen as that, but how can you base an opinion on something you don't know (supernatural) unless it is based upon ignorance and some undisclosed political and or social agenda?I base my opinion on what I have observed (obviously very limited) and what others have tested and shown (still limited but the limits are being continually pushed back). That opinion is that there is nothing supernatural at all (and belief in a god(s) is belief in a supernatural being).
A word other than "atheist" would be preferable since the "theist" part is explicitly "belief in a god", but that is the one we seem to have. It is not surprising really since disbelief in the "big" supernatural element in one's life (or other's lives) is usually the first major step towards non-belief in all supernatural things.
As I've said before, I am taking what others say on "faith" (with no religious overtones intended, I just accept what they say) since I have not personally done most of the experiments to show various things that are not immediately obvious (eg: the fact the Earth is spherical-ish, as far as I can tell it is flat, it always looks flat to me (with a few bumps)).
However, I more easily accept new "theories" that fit in with my current world view (as does everyone), *but* different ideas are accepted and taken as "true" if they can provide evidence that the new idea is a better description of what is observed (not necessarily observed by me I should point out).
I don't know why this is hard for Daystar, who claims to be a former atheist. He should know we view belief in God the same as belief in "step on a crack, break your mother's back." He should know we view those who believe in God the same as we view those who believe in "step on a crack, break your mother's back." He should know we view organized religion and the laws it gets passed against abortion, gay marriage, sale of alcohol on Sunday, etc. the same as we view a group of superstitious folks getting a law passed making it illegal to step on a crack, and proecuting the only child of someone whose back breaks under a "res ipsa loquitur" argument that they must have stepped on a crack. I think he's being disingenuous.
