WHAT GOD THINKS OF FUNDAMENTALISM

I'm sure this is the case: however if one was to be intellectually honest one would have to say that religion has been not disproved; rather there is no compeling evidence to suggest that any particular religion is correct in its assertions.I think it's important to note that this holds true for all religions.

'I'm sure this is the case: however if one was to be intellectually honest one would have to say that religion has been not disproved; rather there is no compeling evidence to suggest that any particular religion is correct in its assertions.'Religion has been neither proved nor disproved by empiricism. One cannot prove/disprove religious precepts by methods that mathematicians use. However, what mathematicians prove cannot really be said to fully satisfy the problems of the human condition. Knowing about the square of the hypotenuse goes only so far, otherwise mere possession of a computer would itself be the final solution, and there would be no 'net forums to discuss 'higher' things. When humanity wants to go further than hypotenuses, it gets into the realms of the experiential, and into moral categories that science cannot reach, that math is quite unable to comment on.Ultimately, we are all existentialists. We cannot even say, 'I think, therefore I am.' We say, 'Here (wherever that is) is experience; it either hurts or it doesn't, and that variation depends upon choice.' Everything stems from that. And that condition applied before there was any science or maths.

Specific religious beliefs can be disproved by empiricism. For example, the religious belief that the world is between 6 to 12,000 years old has been very forcefully disproved. Never the less, some people believe that.

I think that you will find that (as Ramoss points out) many of the claims of religion can be rules out by the scientific approach.However, this will not convince believers (normally) so in a way you are correct that empiricism will never disprove relion.But, religion is a social construct so empiricism can't really be used in this case. As far as I'm concerned, religion is not conerned with the human condition: it is method of diseminating ideas of how to think and behave.Nothing more than that.

'the religious belief that the world is between 6 to 12,000 years old has been very forcefully disproved.'Is that a religious belief? It's a historic belief, surely. 'Prayer five times a day is necessary' and 'Fornication is against divine will' are religious beliefs, because they impinge on behavior, which the above does not, for most people. Science is unable to disprove religious ideas, almost by definition.

Not all religious ideas are subjective ideas.

Good point Stile ...As well, it should serve the debate well to separate theology from ritual.One Love

---

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, I'm just a fool playing with ideas.
My only intention is to tickle your thinker. Trust nothing I say. Learn for yourself.
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

'Not all religious ideas are subjective ideas.'Perhaps not. And so?

Objective ideas can be disproven...as with the religious belief in a global Flood or a young Earth.Those are, in fact, religious beliefs - they are beliefs supported only by the literal reading of a set of holy texts, and are held only by the faithful of the source religion. It's pretty obvious that believing that the world was Created by God in 6 days roughly 6-10,000 years ago is a religious belief. It also makes objective claims, which means that those claims can be disproven. And, of course, they have been disproven, quite soundly and from a myriad of independent avenues.

quote:

---

Those are, in fact, religious beliefs - they are beliefs supported only by the literal reading of a set of holy texts, and are held only by the faithful of the source religion.

---

They may be (and are) held by others, and faithful of the 'source' religion (whatever that is) may not hold them, but take a non-literal view. That is why debates about 'creation vs evolution' are of no absolute value, because for many (a majority, worldwide), perhaps all, there is no reason to believe that creation was not via evolution. As has been mentioned, the only useful purpose in debate is to ensure that fundamentalist views are not taught as science, a cause that theists and atheists alike may support- in the interests of continued prosperity and civilisation!

quote:

---

It's pretty obvious that believing that the world was Created by God in 6 days roughly 6-10,000 years ago is a religious belief.

---

It isn't obvious at all. It is not a religious belief per se. It carries no religious import of itself. It is a belief that some hold as true, but it is not a religious belief, because it has no religious significance in itself. Some say that it is a prerequisite to religious belief, yes, but others of the same ostensible belief say that beliefs about the method of creation are neither here nor there. Some who oppose religion think that by disproving YECism they dispense with religion based on the book of Genesis, but they are completely misguided. If religion is to be opposed, it must be opposed honestly, on its essential grounds, on its necessary consequences, not on the views of those who may deliberately adopt phoney religious views in order to provide straw man arguments for their friends to oppose. And YEC beliefs are so mind-bogglingly inane that this must be the situation in the USA. It's the measure of the apparent desperation of Americans to come to terms with both God and Mammon. It's really just a giant white flag.

Irrelevant. The beliefs themselves are religious in nature, no different than the belief that Jesus is God, or the Holy Trinity, or that Zeus rules teh heavens. Some, even many sects of the "source" religion as you call it may not hold the beliefs, but they are beliefs only held on a religious nature. They have no external source whatsoever. Have you ever met a Creationist? I have. There is more than adequate conflict between some people of faith and science. There is reason to claim that evolution has not happened if one interprets the Bible literally, believes in 6-day Creation in teh order represented in Genesis, and believes that teh world is less than 10,000 years old as established in Biblical geneology. That's the entire point of this site. I would agree. It's unfortunate that there are many who disagree, and want "equal time" for Creationism, or other such non-science to enter the science classroom. I'd realy love to see your definition of "religious belief." The courts have certainly agreed that Creationism qualifies as a religious belief - why do you disagree? Considering that the belief that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, or the belief in a global Flood, or a belief in 6-day special Creation, all come from the bible and not from any secular source, I think it's rather painfully obvious that those things are religious beliefs.This isn't about opposing religion. It's about opposing religion in the science classroom. There is no attempt here to destroy religion as a whole by attacking Creationists - there is only the attempt to make science classrooms exclusively teach science as generally accepted by scientists.

'The beliefs themselves are religious in nature, no different than the belief that Jesus is God'The belief that Jesus is God has the consequence that Jesus' teachings/actions bear upon human teaching/actions. The teaching that creation took place in six days is totally without implication.'The courts have certainly agreed that Creationism qualifies as a religious belief'But creationism is not just the belief that God created in 6 days.'There is no attempt here to destroy religion as a whole by attacking Creationists'Really. 'Considering that the belief that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, or the belief in a global Flood, or a belief in 6-day special Creation, all come from the bible and not from any secular source' doesn't seem like evidence for that claim.Edited by ochaye, : No reason given.