Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

The instances where Christians are trying to replace Evolution with Creationism is also quite rare, but it gets a lot of publicity that other instances don't. This makes it look like a huge, widespread problem.

The teacher didn't specifically say "there is no God" but used phrases similar to 'religion is nothing but magic' to make that point.

I recall one line to which the students objected was "Don't put your faith in a god. Put it into something real that you can actually use."

Another was "there is no material evidence for any form of religion, and you can't believe in both religion and science."

Sorry rosborne, my bad. You didn't say magic was synonymous with religion. Foxfyre made that leap for you and I quoted her without checking the accuracy of the words she attributed to you. I should have known better. Yes, I agree magic can be synonymous with the supernatural.

Ros, while we are differentiating, do you agree that as Timber often said "religious faith cannot be objectively differentiated from superstition"?

spendius wrote:

timber asked for a difference meaning between superstitions and religions.

I offered him one.I know it was similar to the difference between breakfast and supper which are both eating but he did ask.

The difference between religion and superstition is the difference between pride and humility.The first is traditionally the No 1 of the Seven Deadly Sins and the second is a virtue of a high order.

That's why successful politicians stress so much the idea that they are "serving".

spendi, you present not answers but responses which do not satisfy the query to which you are responding. Sophistry, rationalization, and equivocation, no matter how sincerely and nobly presented, do not constitute rebuttal.
http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1937802#1937802

I didn't say religion cannot be differentiated from superstition. Timber always used the term "religious faith" when making that challenge to objectively differentiate it from superstition.

That's why successful politicians stress so much the idea that they are "serving".

Religious faith falls into many categories and beliefs; from the very humanistic to the suicide bomber who believes 72 virgins are waiting for him.

They're all based on promises from books written for the masses to control them, and it's been very successful. From sun gods, animal gods, human gods, and image gods; all have the same basis for religious beliefs. Man's unsatiable belief that there's a god with super power that will save them from death on this planet.

mesquite wrote:

I didn't say religion cannot be differentiated from superstition. Timber always used the term "religious faith" when making that challenge to objectively differentiate it from superstition.

Ok. My turn to apologize for misreading the quote. "Religious Faith", not Religion.

Religious Faith seems a whole lot closer to superstition than does religion in general. At the moment, I can't think of any way to differentiate the two things. I would have to consider some extreme examples to test whether there is a difference or not. Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with many extreme examples of Religious Faith.

The "Fly-in-the-ointment" thing there - which is insuperable - is the whole "FAITH" deal - "Faith" is merely conviction; it has no externally referential, independently verifiable, repeatable observational basis. There simply is no functional difference between "Faith" and superstition, no matter how firmly one of whatever "FAITH" may be convinced that "FAITH" is "Real". That it may be believed means niether more nor less than that it is believed, and in no way entails that it be real. As said earlier, religious faith is at best a guess, and at worst a conscious, intentional fraud.

Well mesquite-

I find that naive. It just uses words in a way that derives the desired conclusion from the premisses.

A certain type of psychologist might well say that the "Superego" or the "Character armour" constitute an external reference.

I offered another external reference yesterday.

Further to that the topic here, as I take it, concerns Christianity and not any other religion. Anyone who accepts that will see the success of Christianity as an external reference.

There is such a thing as a "pious fraud".

timber was never challenged on a "no fraud" situation. He accepted Christian property institutions on a "faith" that the propertyless and destitute might say is a "fraud". I quoted the Marquis de Sade on that subject recently.