I did NOT say all athiests are Budhists. I said that the philosphy of atheism is just as religious as the thought of theism. And I asked for YOUR defintion. With my own intent for you to think about it and NOT run to dictionary.com. I personally disagree with that defintion. It looks good at first accept when you realize it accepts conventional western thought and dosn't accept several generally accepted relgions as relgions because not all religions have specfics about creation or a creator. So again I ask. What is YOUR definition of religion? What makes this one person religious and this other person not? What did this person do or not do?
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonlich
I must accept that anything I see as true today might be proven false tomorrow - that's the whole basis of scientific research.
|
Thats the truest thing I have heard said on this entire thread. But let me ask you this. How is that the sound logical thing to do? How is it the logical thing to base your whole life on something that you KNOW may and probably will be proven wrong tomorow? Its happened time and time again. I am not saying that science has nothing to teach us. I am just saying there is only so much we can learn from science (same as there is only so much we can learn from philosphy) I think those are the two most important things in the world but should be kept seperate. Science shouldn't be used to answer philosophical question and Philosphy shouldn't be used to answer scienctific questions.
One last thing. Athiesm is and always had been philosophical. Philosphy and religion are that nice grey area. Wether you see all oh philosphy as a form of religion (as I do) or not is moot. They are both in that same grey area of non science. That is the simplest but also best answer I can come up for how
I define religion. Non-science. Not that its a bad thing. Science explains the how. Philosphy explains the why. No matter how much you try science can NOT explain the why. Thats the problem when people want to bring science into a philosphical debate. It makes no never you find to me wether we came from monkeys,an ancestor of monkeys,birds or were created in 7 days. None of that (with the exception of the last one) has anything to do with proof of the excistance of a higher power. If you came to me tomorow and showed me proof that no one could dispute that we came from aliens that looked like alf and have since evolved to what we are now. That would not change my philosphical thought one bit. There is not a scientfic princple out there that if true or false proves or disproves any of my own philosphical thought.