Bill

Just to demonstrate how silly that definition is, under it Tibetan Buddhism is NOT a religion, and thus the Dali Lama cannot be a "religious leader."

Now, isn't that the silliest thing you've ever heard? Yes, so that definition of "religion" is clearly erroneous.....

== Bill

echidna

Hang in there / here Tricia. In the rich tapestry of Life, we all need someone to stir the pot from time to time. I for one can appreciate the harsh martyrdom you’ve undertaken for yourself in coming to such a hostile place. But amongst all the insults and mockery, every now and again someone like Bill might actually answer your questions.

Contrary to popular opinion, it is possible to post here credibly and remain theistic, just depends a bit to what extent.

Kudos to your honesty and perseverance for starters.

(Sorry for the badly mixed metaphors.)

hezekiah jones

Excuse me, but Tricia's "question" was immediately engaged on the first page of this thread. Read carefully and you will notice that since the OP Tricia has had approximately nothing substantive to add, despite repeated requests to clarify her assertions that the newspaper article she originally posted would have been more "interesting" had its author been an "atheist."

Yes, it is possible. Not on this particular thread, however.

Answerer

Well Bill, just demonstrate how ignorant you are about Buddhism, I will tell you soemthing about it. First of all, most Buddhists never really regarded Buddhism as a religion but rather just as a way of life. Next, even if ignorant people like you wish to define Buddhism as a religion, it doesn't mean that the buddhists
must regard the same way as you just did.
Finally, even if Buddhism is regarded as a religion, it also provide 'gods'(protectors) for the people to worship, so it still come within the scope of my definition.

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

MrDarwin

Tricia, if you are so horribly bored, then it might relieve your boredom a bit to think about your own question a bit, and let us know what you think about it.

Surely you realize that "religion" is a fairly vague term, and different people are going to answer your question differently, depending on their own personal definitions of the word "religion". (Personally, my own definition of "religion" would involve belief in the supernatural, that which is not only unexplained, but which cannot be explained, because it exists outside of the natural world that we can sense, study, and test. So by my own definition evolutionary theory is not a religion, because it explains the history of life in purely naturalistic terms.)

So Tricia, what do you think "religion" means, and do you think that evolutionary theory fits the definition? Why or why not?

echidna

Oh I know, just that being one of the younger members, I just feel it’s worth cutting her a little more slack. In terms of non-value-added posts, I found Tricia’s less unproductive than some of the others of greater scholarship. Tricia, in my own estimation, learning about other worldviews is never an easy thing to do.

Sorry for the bother. Please, proceed with the crucifixion.

(Just kidding of course T)

Bane

I think the patience of some of the posters in here is frayed due to the randman incident. I can understand why.

Tricia

ok, I give.

religion- the service and worship to God or a god.

Note the service part. It's not simply a belief that one puts on the back burner. It's integrated into every aspect of life. At least it is for me.

Yes, I do believe evolution is a religion compared to a science. I've been reading this book called "Scientific Creationism" by Henry Morris.

“Since evolution has not been scientifically proved and, in fact, cannot even be tested, in the long-range, it must be accepted on faith. Even so-called micro-evolution, or variation, which presumably can be tested, has so far failed the test.”


Because I believe that evolution is not the way the earth came into being, I would have to say it must be accepted by faith.

~Tricia

echidna

To use a common analogy, I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow. The hypothesis has not been completely scientifically proven, so does that make me a Sun Worshipper ?

KeithHarwood

Evolution does not have a god, therefore by your definition it is not a religion.

Nor does it have prophets, holy books, inspired dogma or any of the other paraphenalia of a religion. All it has is vast amounts of evidence from all parts of the world, discovered by tens of thousands of scientists over the last five humdred years and distributed over dozens of different scientific disciplines. And all that evidence is available for you to see and to find for yourself. What's more, all the scientific literature tells you how to find the evidence for yourself, you don't have to take anybody's word for it. In science, disbelief is good, having faith is bad.

Everything in that paragraph is a lie, nearly everything in the book is a lie, and the evidence suggests that Morris knew they were lies when he wrote them. However, he was trying to bring people to the Faith and therefore lying was praise-worthy. This is established Christian doctrine from St. Paul through Martin Luther to today. Any lie, no matter how deceitful, is praise-worthy in the sight of God if it is intended to bring people to Christ.

However, scientists aren't allowed to lie, not at all, for any reason. They aren't even allowed to tell the truth if the evidence doesn't support it well enough. The best they can say is, "the evidence suggests that such and such might be the case". So when scientists say, "evolution is a fact" it isn't a faith, or a belief, or a dogma, it is knowledge supported by such an amount of evidence that to deny it requires willful ignorance, deliberate deceit or irrational perversity bordering on insanity.

I hope I misunderstand what you are saying here. It looks as if you are saying that because
you don't believe evolution happened that everyone must accept it by faith.

But even if that's not what you mean you should know that no one, and especially not the scientists working in the field, wants anyone to accept evolution by faith. Don't accept evolution on faith. Don't even try. And it's the same in every field of science. Never take anything on faith. No scientist ever does. Nor should you.