The scientific problem with creationism and intelligent design is the one asked by many children, which is "who made God?" It's a mistake to assume or assert a creator without at least attempting to explain the creator's origin. Statements such as "in the beginning was God" are non-answers, yet religions claim that these constitute absolute truth.
They hold equally logical answers as the questions of the big bang - where did all that matter come from? How was it compressed like that? What is in the space around the universe?
Who made God is a fair question, not asked only by children. But, still having questions does not minimize the potential truth of the argument.
First, the idea of gods and the idea of morality are not necessarily linked. Many religions have defined their gods as not being moral agents. The Old Testament attributes many actions to its god that the average person would deem immoral in another context, such as the genocide of Jericho.
Second, humans have a moral intuition that is hard-wired to some degree. It exists even in people who ignore it. While the moral principle of not harming others is objective, its application can be subjective because humans are imperfect. Two reasonable people can subscribe to that moral principle but disagree on how to apply it in a difficult situation.
This whole portion of this discussion began with your assertion that proving (or allowing as equal) the concept that religion might hold the right answers would mean the church would wield some huge power over people. Your arguments here prove that there would still be no church rule of mankind.
I never claimed that religion had any such monopoly. What religion does is redefine good, deeming any action as good if it's in the service of gods.
I would say each religion defines "good", not redefines it. But, basically, I agree with you here. I don't see the problem with it.
No, the burden of proof is on any claim that there is existence beyond death, because we have no testable evidence. My point about punishments and rewards beyond death was that these can be extremely powerful motivations - people who believe in them would go to great lengths to avoid the former and achieve the latter. Muslim suicide bombers come to mind.
Either I'm missing the focus of your points, or they shift with the conversation. Idiots will be idiots, regardless of religious stance. As a general rule of thumb (not an absolute, but generally) non-religious people are more likely to be okay with abortion - whereas I see that as killing another human. Fanatics will become self-inflicted martyrs, whereas the average religious person finds that atrocious.
When speaking of the after-life, or lack thereof, my point was in response to the comments regarding "condemning" a non-religious person to a punishment in the afterlife. The non-religious person condemns the religious to a lack of afterlife, the religious believe the non-religious condemn themselves to a punishment of sorts (lack of reward). My point was each side equally attacks the other regarding the concept of an afterlife. Each side believes the know the answer, and the other will be upset by it.
Paul and Augustine might disagree, since they branded the Christian one as absolute truth. Since you're suggesting that all interpretations are equal, does that mean you reject the idea of absolute truth?
Absolutely not. There is no doubt in my mind that there can be only one absolute truth (by definition). I believe I know what it is. Paul believed he knew, WXTornado and TommyJones believe they know. We all have equal proof. Therefore, the only morally correct way to act is to respect that each person is allowed their own view, with the understanding that each of us believes we know the consequences to the other.
