Distinguising Religion from Non-Religion

Fiath is still something you believe in even though you can't prove it. It doesn't matter what context it is used in.I will agree that there is a difference between blind faith, and faith based on evidence.I believe in God by faith based on evidence I have seen and experiences in my own life. Can I prove He exists (bring Him to show and tell and go, "Look..there's God")? No.One believes in evolution based on evidence that can bee seen and experiences. Can you prove evolution happened (bring a dog to show and tell and it be another species when you leave)? No.

---

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

quote:

---

Fiath is still something you believe in even though you can't prove it. It doesn't matter what context it is used in.

---

This thread is about distinguishing between religion and nonreligion.So again, given the assumptions from the OP Do the points you speak of in the TOE actually require religious faith?
Do you feel the TOE qualifies as a religion based on the approaches provided in the OP?If yes, please explain how the approaches support your conclusion.

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

Hey ramoss,Could you try and use the approaches in the OP to make your point if you continue this line of discussion with Tal?I'd appreciate it, otherwise it falls into the same old argument.IMO, there is a difference between secular beliefs and religious beliefs.Thank you

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

Independant replication?For science to be considered viable, does not independant replication play a needed part? Is there such a concept as independant replication in Religion?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Independant from what or whom?

Independant replication simply means that any other group can replicate the findings.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Then I am not sure whether it would work in religion. A group of people who claim to have had impartation would be challenged by another group who claimed no such experience.Like I said in another thtread, though...we just run our mouths...the Boss does the recruiting. From His standpoint, everyone will have the chance to be saved through independant replication from Him.

That is why it is one way to distinguish Science and Religion. Science can be independantly replicated, Religion cannot.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

From what I can tell, those that keep telling us that TOE is a belief and support it with the last definition of belief: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. Just as Tal did and iano did to me in another thread.In the article I read the function-based approach supposedly illustrates that last meaning.I would like to see if evolutionism truly fits under that approach and would like your opinion on whether I have acheived showing that it doesn't. Does evolutionism truly answer the questions of:
1. our origins
2. present existence
3. where are we going and how shall we get there?If yes, then evolutionism alone should be the foundation of my attitudes, values, morality and actions.1. Evolutionism does contain theories of our origins, but no divine intervention is included in the theories, therefore it is a secular belief (anything believed or accepted as true).2. I'd say evolutionism does not answer this question.3. I also don't feel that evolution addresses where are we going and how shall we get there.In reality evolutionism has no bearing on my attitudes, values, morality or actions.
Those are influenced by my experiences in life.Now I can see a scientist or group of scientists who are working on TOE to be enthusiastic about their work, but I don't feel that makes it a religion, otherwise any activity or job that someone was enthusiastic about would become a religion.How'd I do Crash?

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

I realy don't like that quote Purpledawn.It appears to be saying that evolutionism includes abiogenesis. Many of us have spent a lot of time arguing with Creos that it catagorically doesn't.As to your points. I would answer as follows
1. Yes and No. Evolutionism does not address origin of life but does address the origine of the Human species.
2. Yes. If evolution is correct then it fully explains what, why and how we are the way we are today.
3. Absolutely not. Evolution has no plan.

I think we should be talking about evolution, not about evolutionism.I am a proponent of the theory of evolution, and I don't mind being called an evolutionist. But I most certainly am not an adherent of evolutionism.I would prefer to use the term evolutionism for evolution as a philosophical belief system, these beliefs held blindly without understanding the biological basis. Used that way, evolutionism is a religion.We don't talk of physicism, chemism, etc, when discussing the scientific theory. We use physics, chemistry, etc. Let's do it the same way with evolution.

Good point Nwr. let's drop the "ism"

quote:

---

I think we should be talking about evolution, not about evolutionism.

---

This thread is dealing with religious beliefs and secular beliefs.Evolutionism is the closest thing my limited scientific mind could come up with that would include the TOE and fit in with the OP, since no one wants to address the -isms provided.

quote:

---

I would prefer to use the term evolutionism for evolution as a philosophical belief system, these beliefs held blindly without understanding the biological basis. Used that way, evolutionism is a religion.

---

I disagree. I don't see that blindly believing that something is true automatically constitutes a religion.
Message 1I feel there are religious beliefs and there are secular beliefs. I think that is one of the misunderstandings in discussions concerning atheism. People were trying to present atheists as people who have no belief (accepting something as true) whatsoever or that if they do blindly believe something other than God, then they are not an atheist. In that thread I was trying to show that the word atheist only deals with God, nothing else.Through this thread I am trying to show that there are clear religious beliefs and clear secular beliefs. Both groups can believe blindly. How many people used to believe a girl could get pregnant from kissing? (I don't even want to think about how many still do)IMO, believing that any scientific theory is reasonable is secular, not religious, whether one blindly believes or not.

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

quote:

---

Many of us have spent a lot of time arguing with Creos that it catagorically doesn't.

---

That abiogenesis is not a part of the TOE or a part of evolutionism? Evolutionism seems to cover many theories. From what I have read, I would agree it is not part of the TOE.So given your answers to the questions, do you feel that the theory of evolution or any of the other theories in evolutionism have been instrumental in forming your attitudes, values, morality and actions in life?

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

quote:

---

That abiogenesis is not a part of the TOE....

---

Ironically, even though abiogenesis is not a part of the theory of evolution, elements of theory of evolution (namely natural selection acting on imperfect replicators) undoubtable can shed light on the process by which the first replicating systems became the first biological cells.