<<I don't it's a necessary condition to have good morals>>
I don't think I ever said that having religious faith was necessary to have morals. However, what I find interesting is that the morals you claim are merely "common sense" actually, in many cases, are values that were initially teachings by various religions around the world.
<<in fact, I think atheists, as a whole, are more moral than any religious group.>>
Now is that "in fact" or is it "I think?" The two don't work together. I think you're giving an opinion. That said, I'm not sure how you come to your conclusion because I know of no quantitative way of proving your position.
<<billions of people who claim to know the "truth". How did they get so smart>>
Aren't you doing the same thing when you say atheists are more moral than any religious group? How did you get so smart?
<<I think the majority believe because they are hedging their bets>>
By saying that you're basically implying that the majority of people only attend religious services just in case there's a God. I haven't seen the multiple choice questionnaire that shows most people who believe or have faith selected the "Just in case" answer. Can I prove there's a God? No. Do I claim to know the truth? No. DO I have all the answers? No.
<<Religion begins where reason ends>>
Maybe. OTOH I've seen ZERO evidence that can conclusively prove we all grew out of some pit of primordial stew. So if science can't offer up 100% proof why is faith any less reasonable than a scientific guesstimate? The only fair answer to that question is "it's not."
<<And how can a reasonable person think that there is an "eternal heater">>
I guess I thought you'd pick up on the humor based on the combination of the context and the terminology I used to describe hell.
<<any evidence of such? Satan? Angels? A human god?>>
Well, there are the eyewitness accounts by 4 different people in the Gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. Are they scientific proof? No. But science can't disprove them either.
<<And btw, one does not "believe" in evolution.....you accept the scientific facts of evolution.>>
Science has not proven evolution beyond the shadow of a doubt. It sure sounds logical but the 100% proof isn't in yet.
<<They are not in the same arena>>
You're 100% correct. Science requires proof where religion requires faith. Since we don't have 100% proof in either case who is to say which is right? I certainly don't have the answer.
___________________________________________________________________
So you tell me....am I a religious zealot or am I an Atheist?
What I find surprising is that you would take a post as innocuous as this Message 23592002 and respond with such a charged reply. Don't be so entrenched in your position that it leaves no room for the possibility of an alternative view because the ONLY FACT is that neither you nor I know the exact answer. |
