Continued:
3) You said fundamentalist. A creationist is different. Let me explain: Biblical Literalism means you take the Bible literally, but you also factor in context. If someojevsaid there were "like a million people" there...would you take that literally? Or as an expression for a lot? An example would be the use of "40 days and nights." 40 days was a common number used in that era to just mean "a long time."
A devout Catholic might be a fundamentalist, but not actually a creationist. Or believe 7 days has a much different meaning to God than to a human (time being relative of course). And this is what I mean in that I don't think you fully grasp that issue. I wouldn't expect many outside the church to do so though. Especially with how loud the media has been on the topic.
If you are using that approach then there is no common ground for agreement. The meaning of the religious text is so malleable as to be meaningless. Make it say whatever you want. Interpretation without boundary.
4) Irrarional thinking does not equal bad thinking. Further believing in a religion, which I'm not arguing about the rationality of, does not make one irrational. ALL humans act irrationally at times or hold irrational views. Said views do not make them bad, screwed up, or irrational.
Irrational thinking is thinking without reason, without a logically consistent train of thought which starts with a premise and ends with a well supported conclusion. An open ended answer is irrational for the same reason the number value for Pi is irrational....it never reaches a definite end point or conclusion. Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was an irrational conclusion...a guess based on inconclusive evidence. How many people bought into that one?
5) Can you please reference the scripture verse where it says I must take the Bible literally...as is...word for word? Please refrain from trying to tell me what I "must" believe in order to be in my religion. This goes back to the obligatory atheist must create strawman of what defines MY religion and then...since I cannot be pigeon holed into that view...I am not a "true believer."
Do you understand that that is not a logical or solid argument for you to make?
You think you can pick and choose which tenets of your religion to accept and which not to? If you are a Catholic and you do that, then you are a modified Catholic or not really a Catholic at all. The religion you follow makes the rules. Not me. Not the Bible.
6) So can I hold you responsible for the actions of any other atheist? Is that the precedent we are setting? Because that seems like what you want. Hardly a rational position.
I don't hold you or other religious people responsible for terrorists flying planes into buildings. I blame it on irrational thinking. THEY did it for their religion. For the religious reward. THEY were not grounded in reality because of their irrational religious beliefs.
7) Then I will reference you back to philosophy/religion/meaning of life. Can you please tell me at what point one is to determine the meaning of life or their purpose in said life..."dispassionately?" Do you see the issue? You can't go through life "dispassionately," which you understand logically, and expect the scientific method to answer all your questions.
Like Doctor Jones said: Archeology is the search for fact, not truth. If it's truth you're interested in, Dr. Tyree's Philosophy class is right down the hall.
If I ask a question which can be addressed rationally then that's the method I should choose. Questions which ask "Why" can not be answered scientifically, or rationally. Why presupposes a purpose. We don't know that there is any purpose. You can create your own purpose based upon your interests, humanity, your children etc. Believe in god if it helps.
My issue and that of most scientists, is when the irrational "why" method is misused to address a "how" question. When you do that you end up with people thinking men walked along side dinosaurs or that they will get 72 virgins for flying a plane into the side of a building.
8) I think you missed my point. My point is that "scientific thinking" is not the end all be all answer. There will not be a rational answer to every question. Period. And I understand that you get that. What I DON'T understand about your position is...do you think they religious people are attempting to answer ALL of life's questions with religion? Do you think the big question we are answering with "religion," is a question that can be reached "rationally?"
Some answers can be addressed scientifically, some philosophically and some not at all. I am content with "I don't know". We can speculate, we can guess, we can believe but we will not KNOW unless we can rationally deduce a conclusion.
