Originally Posted By: wheelz999
Science really came about, exploding in the 16th and 17th century out of a theistic background. Many philosophers of science have studied this, but I forget what it's called (maybe Grunt can help me out). So in a sense, yes, science is a religion (Edit-or this is at least one strong current theory). Saying this, I favor science.

Being an atheist and anti-theist, I wholeheartedly agree with everything else you said, Luke. I'm also an anarchist (following the teachings of Bakunin), and would extend morality to controlling all of life, therefore no laws etc. There isn't one law that stops me from doing something because I may face jurisprudence or end up in jail. But rather my morality guides me through life, choosing not to do something because I've been taught, formulated on my own, or experience that it or something is morally corrupt.


OK, I got a problem with this. If man is a part of nature, not the image of a divinity, merely another species in the animal kingdom... what kind of arrogance would imbue him with an inherent morality non-existant in the rest of nature. Nature is amoral. All of God's critters are running around killing each other without compunction.

Seems to me, whether you believe or not, we benefit from the idea that there is right and wrong. And right and wrong can't be determined by a man, or a handful of men, or an entire society, right? All that relativist crap they like to teach you in college... who are we to say that stoning aldutresses is immoral.... \:D