Ten Commandments

[MMI]

But if you pray hard enough good things happen to you? IF there is a dividing line between superstition and religion it is a very tenuous one.

Agreed

I never said that their fairy stories are trivial and have no meaning. We can learn a lot about the human condition from parables and stories. But putting the story of David and Goliath into religious terms doesn't make it any less fictitious than the story of Jack and the Beanstalk.

The story of David and Goliath is a religious tale, and is much more meaningful than Jack and the Beanstalk.

Yes, the point is the same. There is no evidence for either of them.

... apart from the fact that we know them by name and have detailed accounts of their activities.

I don't expect them to welcome truths which contradict their beliefs. And evolution is a perfect example. As I stated above, evolution is a demonstrable fact. We see it happening all around us, and find conclusive evidence for it throughout the fossil record. The mechanisms are still being debated, but the fact remains. Even the Catholic Church acknowledges this. I don't think they welcome it, but they acknowledge it. Creationists, on the other hand.... Look up "God of the Gaps" if you aren't already familiar with the term. You may also want to look at this site,

Why wouldn't they welcome it, if it's true? I've said before, religions must accept scientific proofs if they cannot refute them, and I believe science should not scoff at religious truth simply because it is inadequate to prove/disprove them. It is science that is falls short in these cases.

Of course, pursuing this argument enables you to say I am using the "God of the gaps" argument. But just because you can put a disparaging lable on my argument doesn't mean it is wrong. As I said, science falls short here, not religion

As for the other site ... I looked at it and it smacks of the same kind of obsessive fanaticism that you see on the Christian fundamentalist sites and the militant atheist sites of people like Dworkin. It just cannot accept the idea that religions might have the answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything long before they do.

What do I need besides "god did it"? How about evidence?

It's all around you. It's exactly the same evidence that you cite to prove the validity of science.

Science doesn't address that question because it is still trying to answer the question, "IS there a purpose?" So far, at least, the answer is, "Not as far as we can tell."[/i]

I'm not aware of any scientific enquiries into the purpose of existence, so I think that answer is one you have drummed up yourself. Science, in fact, restricts itself to a lower order of question, the "how" rather than the "why" and this is because it focuses exclusively on the natural, whereas religion's focus is on the supernatural. It is perfectly possible, Thorne, for science and religion to co-exist until one of them tries to deny the other.

I said IF you remove the concept of a designed universe.

What would be the point of that?

I still consider your words, We are here. Period. There is no why to be nothing less than an assertion based on faith.

Please see my response to denuseri, above.

Having looked at that response, I conclude that you consider scientists to be as capable of corruption and as flawed as ministers of religion. The existence of corrupt practitioners does not prove that what they practice is false, whether that be science or religion.

Probably because the laws of nature, as we understand them, do not allow cold fusion to occur. It requires tremendous amounts of heat and pressure. That doesn't mean scientists have given up. Just that the likelihood of developing it is growing more remote.

I think this demonstrates that science has its holy grails, where it pursues enquiries into things it believes to be so, yet cannot prove. Acts of faith.

"Improvement" is a subjective term, or course. But if we assume that we can all agree on what such an "improvement" might be, yes it should be possible to selectively breed humanity to achieve it.

That doesn't mean that we should, however. Aside from the risks of interfering with the natural path of evolution and "improving" ourselves into extinction, there are moral considerations to consider. Morals having nothing to do with religion.

And morals have never held science back for long.

OH! You were one of those GOOD kids! That explains it.

I suppose I must have been, although I wouldn't want to make a big thing about it.