aj/quote..""evidence forms opinions..not the other way around...""

as a generalisation
but clearly not as an absolute definitive statement of fact..

ie athiests may just simply accept there is no reason for their athism..except previous run/ins..with those claiming to 'have' religeon..and simply chosing to reject the whole of their concept..
based on mere opinion..[that refuses to egsamin contrary facts]

i have had this many times..[re the THEORY of evolution]
that is ignorantly presumed to be fact..when its plainly a theory

[opinion masking itself with science..
but not specificly THE science
that backs THE theory..of evolving out of genus]

to wit say the huge jump betwen cold blood fish
and warmblood mammal...THIS ALONE..should demant true proof
but it dont

evidence would needfully form from fact
if claiming science..by replicatable fact
that then forms into theo-ry...stating definitive 'faulsifyables'
[that if refutted refute the theory]

opinion may not require facts
nor belief...but claim*..requires proof

take this claim

""After all religion is an emotional beast,..not a rational one.""

thats a generalised opinion
i know many un-emotional...passionless believers
in many faiths...and many beliefs...and un beliefs

religion could be described by many words
or by many generalisations...but to classify a whole sub group..as representative of the whole..

thats an opinion..
or a bias..

not a 'faulsifyable'/fact

aj/quote..""Well, I know many Christians
who are brilliant critical thinkers outside their faith...""

thats an opinion

i know many claiming FAITH
in the science of evolving out of genus
without even a basic grasp of science method or science rules

many that unthinkingly reject the facts..
that science hasnt made life from non life

that science cant definitivly name the first living
cant replicate the 'first evolution'...

indeed is so full of holes/gaps
as to more closly resemble a sieve
than even a theory..let alone a faulsifyable fact

the so called holy texts at least stand as they are
evolution is a faulse theory..
that works only at species level
[ie finches evolve within the bound of finch]

dopgs within the genus cannus
pigeons within the genus columbia
apple trees within apple...weat within its genus
trikllions of fruitfly matings have made ONLY fruitflies
bacteria from bacteria//etc etc

LIKE MAKES LIKE
each after their own kind
[as is written on the first page][of the bible]

and science has gotten no beter
the bible says let there be light
science says there was a big bang...
trouble being the bible said it 2000 years ago

science still cant decide.. string *THEOry
let alone validate/replicate..its evolviing evolutionRY theoRY

I find your posts difficult to follow, one under god, and I suspect I'm not entirely alone in that.

But I couldn't help noticing this:

>>i have had this many times..[re the THEORY of evolution]
that is ignorantly presumed to be fact..when its plainly a theory<<

If "the theory of evolution" is a theory, where does that place God?

Theory or fact?

Because in order to adopt "Creation" as your definition of how the universe came into being, you would first need a God. Upon which you rest your case...

>>LIKE MAKES LIKE
each after their own kind
[as is written on the first page][of the bible]<<

Don't worry about evidence. Your opinion will do just fine.

AJ, I think your postulation (in my interpretation) is: "the 7% of wars attributable to religion proves that religion is (inherently) divisive".

Let's apply your Occam's Razor, by substituting an alternative proposition to prove or disprove that "religion is divisive".

So, we don't need the 7%, but we do need "war" and "religion". But substitute "conflict" for war, and "belief" for religion. Hence, beliefs cause conflict, so, beliefs are divisive. However, "beliefs" is not specific enough. So, "differences in beliefs" are (or can be) divisive, because they can cause conflict.

If this reduction is acceptable, then we have the following, that: "differences in beliefs are (can be) a cause of conflict, and therefore are (can be) divisive."

Can we legitimately remove the "can be"? That would infer that differences will "always" cause conflict. I hold this to be too broad, and hence "can cause conflict" and "can be divisive" would be the more accurate rule.

Proof of the "rule": There are conflicts (of various dimension) occurring all the time (supposedly) due to differences in belief(s) - eg Sunni v Shiia, Muslim v Christian. This proves that rule. But, is that rule specific enough to be of value?

Hence, are religion-based differences in belief(s) responsible for a greater incidence or greater intensity of conflict, than other differences, such as ethnicity, class, wealth? Eg, Hutu v Tootsie, Serb v Croat, or, Serb v Albanian, white v black, communist v capitalist, or v monarchist or v liberalist?

Can differences in religious beliefs be a cause of conflict? Sure. Can other (non religion-based) differences be a cause of conflict? Also, sure. What does this prove? Not much, just that man is a naturally aggressive animal, and unless constrained is apt to resolve "differences" by resorting to violence. A pity, but without law, and without (internalised) "guidance", man is a beast. Some of that "guidance" comes from religion, but more extensively comes from parental and societal "example and teaching". Hence, in general, religion is of lesser influence on behaviour and character than other "environmental" factors.
TBC>

AJ, (Continued):

Man is a beast. Therefore, could God have purposely created such a beast "in His image"? Surely not. The better rule: "God created an extraordinary free-thinking intelligent life-form to enjoy the amazing universe God had created." Why did God create the universe? Because an amorphous mass of matter is a building block demanding "organisation". Is man "in God's image"? No way! God is universal, and hence has no "image". What then is God? God is "life universal". Why then the mention of "in His image"? It should be "in an image of God's making", nothing more. (My opinion - and "belief".)

To conclude: "God" created the universe and is exemplified in "Life" - because there is not a better or more compelling explanation - and God is not responsible for man's aggression, man is.

Would or could God be hoping or expecting "Man" to eventually achieve a "higher" plateau of existence - by overcoming aggression, overcoming "differences", and becoming a benevolent steward of both "humanity" and "nature" - quite possibly so. Why could this be so? Firstly because this would be a greatly "improved" condition than currently applies (or has applied throughout the past), and secondly because God might yet be planning (hoping?) to be able to "introduce" mankind to other of God's inhabitants of this far-flung amazing universe. Such is not totally implausible, surely?

As "God" is inherent in all "life" including man, "God" (the life force) is present in believer and non-believer alike, and hence, there can be no such thing as an atheist or an agnostic - spiritual, free-thinking or otherwise - for all, by definition (mine) are imbued with God's energy, and else would not and could not otherwise "exist".

Interesting logical progressions, Saltpetre. Too many to discuss each one, unfortunately. But there were a couple of your examples that I thought might bear some further examination.

>>are religion-based differences in belief(s) responsible for a greater incidence or greater intensity of conflict, than other differences, such as ethnicity, class, wealth? Eg, Hutu v Tootsie, Serb v Croat, or, Serb v Albanian, white v black, communist v capitalist, or v monarchist or v liberalist?<<

Example 1. Hutu vs Tutsi

The Tutsi always regarded themselves as superior. The name "Hutu", even applied to inferiors amongst their own people, and was automatically applied to the people they subjugated. Towards the end of the nineteenth century, Catholic missionaries made their presence felt, and began their conversion routines. Being the downtrodden party, the Hutu people were naturally more enthusiastic, whereas the Tutsi resisted.

As Professor Yochanan Bwejeri summarized it:

"The missionaries found success only among the Hutu 'gerim'. Because of Tutsi resistance and Hutu acceptance of Catholicism, Tutsi land was confiscated and given to Hutu 'squatters'. This is the origin of the conflict between the Tutsi and the Hutu."

I wonder if this war was counted in Trav's magic "7%"?

Example 2. Serbs vs Croats

Even the most cursory examination of the history of this turbulent region will unearth massive religious conflict. During WWII it was the declared policy of the heavily-Catholic Croatians that Serbian Orthodox Christianity was "incompatible with their principles", and they proceeded to forcibly convert, expel or simply kill Serbs.

Another candidate for that "7%", I wonder.

I'm not sure how valuable the rest are as examples. When was the war between Serbia and Albania, and how many people died?