Replies

Thank you for your reply, WildHorseCrash!

True, but, again, one can be an atheist without having a rational basis for it. The default you seem to be operating under is that "you are religious unless there is a materialistic or rational proof for your opinion." I don't believe that holds.

“It” is never an issue until one argues that scientific materialism is “proof” of atheism. (e.g. infidels.org) I will be quite content if we can agree that arguments from answers-in-Genesis and infidels.org are both ideologically biased and should be viewed (and perhaps largely dismissed) accordingly.

I included the “What is religion?” link because it is a challenge to comprehend what atheism is or is not wrt other religions. There are many definitions, of course, but the conclusion drawn at that site is comprehensive and offers many sources and links for the curious.

Personally, I am not bothered by whatever ideological bias one might bring to the science debates on this Forum - as long as the correspondent does not claim a superior position with regard to science, which is to be ideologically neutral.

betty boop and I both notoriously dismiss Lewontin, Pinker, Singer and a few others as authorities on the basis of their well published ideological bias. This is the same order of objections raised to authorities embraced on the answers-in-Genesis website.

I suspect you and betty boop and I will have many exciting debates on the forum because you seem to understand that there is a boundary between the objectivity of science and the ideology of atheism (in particularly evangelical atheism). By agreeing that there are such boundaries, we are free to discuss anything in the middle ground without reproach – and even discuss a biased view with the understanding that the worldview itself is not objective science.

As I mentioned previously, I have chosen not to reveal on these boards (overtly) what my particular religious beliefs are, because I do not want anyone to view or evaluate my arguments on science though a real or perceived bias about religion. Heck, as with your post about atheism, I don't think one must be an atheist to discuss atheism (Not that I am an atheist... or maybe I am... Hee hee.)

Science and religion need not conflict. They do, sometimes. Some pro-science people attempt to reduce religion in a misguided attempt to prop up science, and some pro-religion people attempt to reduce science in a misguided attempt to prop up religion. Neither of these (nor the gradations inbetween) are, in my mind, proper.