A religious scientist

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I do not dispute the common use of the word; instead I refer to the actual meaning of the word. Of course, you understand that distinction. The word's connotations refer to 'binding or fastening to' of one thing to another, in this case, man to God. Essentially, this is what all religions promise: adhere to this set of conduct and/or observances, and sa ...[text shortened]... verse," makes a fairly iron-clad case for labeling evolution a religion, wouldn't you say?

Words have no "actual" meanings.

Originally posted by Starrman
This reminds me of the thread where he tried to force mechanic materialism but couldn't get anyne to agree with his premises. 200 posts of nothing.

I'm not sure which of the threads initiated by me was a treatise on the subject, but I certainly don't recall any such thing. Furthermore, if consensus were the deciding factor, I think all of us are doomed.

What I have made attempts at, however, is dissemenating doctrine from a systematic theological viewpoint. Surprisingly, such attempts have been met with overwhelming rejection. Go figure.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Words have no "actual" meanings.

The original action, or driving force of the word. Is that better?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The original action, or driving force of the word. Is that better?

No. Are you being metaphorical? That generally adds to confusion in my experience unless the people talking already agree with each other.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
No. Are you being metaphorical? That generally adds to confusion in my experience unless the people talking already agree with each other.

The meaning behind the word's intent, the etymology, if you will. Common usage doesn't necessarily allow for the full meaning to be aired, thus the point regarding how common usage could readily allow for evolution to be labled 'religion.'

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The meaning behind the word's intent, the etymology, if you will. Common usage doesn't necessarily allow for the full meaning to be aired, thus the point regarding how common usage could readily allow for evolution to be labled 'religion.'

Etymology of the word "religion"? What is it?

Here's what I found:

c.1200, "state of life bound by monastic vows," also "conduct indicating a belief in a divine power," from Anglo-Fr. religiun (11c.), from O.Fr. religion "religious community," from L. religionem (nom. religio) "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods," in L.L. "monastic life" (5c.); according to Cicero, derived from relegare "go through again, read again," from re- "again" + legere "read" (see lecture). However, popular etymology among the later ancients (and many modern writers) connects it with religare "to bind fast" (see rely), via notion of "place an obligation on," or "bond between humans and gods." Another possible origin is religiens "careful," opposite of negligens. Meaning "particular system of faith" is recorded from c.1300.
"To hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name." [Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, 1885]
Modern sense of "recognition of, obedience to, and worship of a higher, unseen power" is from 1535. Religious is first recorded c.1225. Transfered sense of "scrupulous, exact" is recorded from 1599.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=religion&searchmode=none

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The meaning behind the word's intent, the etymology, if you will. Common usage doesn't necessarily allow for the full meaning to be aired, thus the point regarding how common usage could readily allow for evolution to be labled 'religion.'

Words do have assigned definitions in language, but this doesn't mean there's an "actual" or "correct" definition.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Etymology of the word "religion"? What is it?

Here's what I found:

c.1200, "state of life bound by monastic vows," also "conduct indicating a belief in a divine power," from Anglo-Fr. religiun (11c.), from O.Fr. religion "religious community," from L. religionem (nom. religio) "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods," in L.L. "mon ...[text shortened]... .etymonline.com/index.php?search=religion&searchmode=none

That's a good source. You'll note their use of "to bind fast" and "bond between humands and gods," and etc.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Words do have assigned definitions in language, but this doesn't mean there's an "actual" or "correct" definition.

Thus my intention to more clearly define an ill-defined word, religion, as it relates to Christianity. Clearly, the message of Christianity is light years away from the religion of do's and do not's. Christianity has but one entrance door, and cannot be accessed via man's efforts and/or ingenuity. The same cannot be said of any other system of thought, whether or not there be supernatural gods involved.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Thus my intention to more clearly define an ill-defined word, religion, as it relates to Christianity. Clearly, the message of Christianity is light years away from the religion of do's and do not's. Christianity has but one entrance door, and cannot be accessed via man's efforts and/or ingenuity. The same cannot be said of any other system of thought, whether or not there be supernatural gods involved.

Christianity is light years away from the religion of do's and do not's.

Are not the 10 commandments part of the Christian religion. Do Christs teachings not tell us what to do and what not to do?

But this is all distraction. Since you are trying to redefine the meaning of the word 'religion' then maybe I could also rephrase my original question:

But which supernatural belief system to choose? There are so many! How do I distinguish the True one from the thousands of false ones when they all have the same level of evidence to support them?

--- Penguin

Originally posted by Penguin
Christianity is light years away from the religion of do's and do not's.

Are not the 10 commandments part of the Christian religion. Do Christs teachings not tell us what to do and what not to do?

But this is all distraction. Since you are trying to redefine the meaning of the word 'religion' then maybe I could also rephrase my original question ...[text shortened]... of false ones when they all have the same level of evidence to support them?

--- Penguin

Are not the 10 commandments part of the Christian religion.
Yes, they are not. All of the commandments have specific categories and classifications, by which we determine their application. The first ten are for everyone and define a standard of living for all societies--- a morality, not a spirituality.

Do Christs teachings not tell us what to do and what not to do?
Application, application, application. As I said to no1 in an earlier post, one must know one's audience.

How do I distinguish the True one from the thousands of false ones when they all have the same level of evidence to support them?
That there are any should give us a long, hard pause. But more to the point, I would go with the one which most likely fits the scenario or our total observations.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Are not the 10 commandments part of the Christian religion.
Yes, they are not. All of the commandments have specific categories and classifications, by which we determine their application. The first ten are for everyone and define a standard of living for all societies--- a morality, not a spirituality.

Do Christs teachings not tell us wha e point, I would go with the one which most likely fits the scenario or our total observations.

So Christianity is a religion of do's and don't (just as much as any other religion).

That there are any should give us a long, hard pause.

If there was only one, then I'd agree with you.

But more to the point, I would go with the one which most likely fits the scenario or our total observations.

That's be atheism or Agnosticism then since none of the supernatural belief systems has any evidence that stands up to any scrutiny. So you have answered your own question from several pages ago: "How you arrive at the agnostic/atheist perspective is beyond me". Thank you.

--- Penguin.

[I can't believe someone is actually arguing creationism with scientific evidence... But please post all your questions, I'll be glad to debate them.[/b]

All right sorry I haven't had much time to get on and talk. Let's here your excuse for this one.




Biological material decays too fast.

Natural radioactivity, mutations, and decay degrade DNA and other biological material rapidly. Measurements of the mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA recently forced researchers to revise the age of “mitochondrial Eve” from a theorized 200,000 years down to possibly as low as 6,000 years.17 DNA experts insist that DNA cannot exist in natural environments longer than 10,000 years, yet intact strands of DNA appear to have been recovered from fossils allegedly much older: Neandertal bones, insects in amber, and even from dinosaur fossils.18 Bacteria allegedly 250 million years old apparently have been revived with no DNA damage.19 Soft tissue and blood cells from a dinosaur have astonished experts.20

Originally posted by Penguin
So Christianity [b]is a religion of do's and don't (just as much as any other religion).

That there are any should give us a long, hard pause.

If there was only one, then I'd agree with you.

But more to the point, I would go with the one which most likely fits the scenario or our total observations.

That's be atheism or Agnosti ...[text shortened]... u arrive at the agnostic/atheist perspective is beyond me"[/i]. Thank you.

--- Penguin.[/b]

Oops, my formatting went a bit crap there. Sorry, I'll try again...

So Christianity is a religion of do's and don't (just as much as any other religion).

That there are any should give us a long, hard pause.

If there was only one, then I'd agree with you.

But more to the point, I would go with the one which most likely fits the scenario or our total observations.

That's be atheism or Agnosticism then since none of the supernatural belief systems has any evidence that stands up to any scrutiny. So you have answered your own question from several pages ago: "How you arrive at the agnostic/atheist perspective is beyond me". Thank you.

--- Penguin.