Being open to other ideas is important. What i was trying to say in my first post in this thread is to each his/her own. I have my beliefs and they have served me well over the years, but i would never want my opinions to apply to everyone.

The problem with organized religion IMO is that it is not open to others beliefs. If asked i will share my feelings, but i don't look down on anyone who believes differently and sadly that is what alot of religions preach. I never bought into the idea that if you don't fall in line with the church you will burn in hell forever. It should be something you feel within yourself and not something used to control others. It should bring an inner peace and joy not fear and condemnation of others.

I'm no saint and i won't spend time reading the Bible or going to Church, I just believe and try to be a good person and help others whenever i can. To me that is how it should be, but the Church would argue otherwise. Its a shame but many Religions focus too much on telling people they have to live a certain way or they will suffer. To me thats not religion, thats control.

Also i don't try to convert others, I will share my thoughts but i don't think less of anyone if they disagree. Who am i to judge anyone? Do i know beyond all doubt i am right? Of course not, none of us knows for sure. Atheists have every right to believe whatever they want and i completely support that. What i do have an issue with is when they tell me i don't have the right to speak of my beliefs. To me thats no better than the Church saying if i don't agree with them i'll burn in hell.

I gave his Small Gods book to a Jehova who was heading off to New Guinea as a missionary, I hope he found it better reading than Watchtower.

Funny thing about religion. It is just an 'R' word for belief.

Some folks believe in science, the 'S' word, some believe in people, the 'P' word, Some in UFOs, the 'U' word, etc, etc. At some level everyone believes in something, even if it is themself.

OK, Is any one belief system worse than any other so long as it hurts no one else? I think not? To limit one belief system limits all belief systems, or at the very least, holds other belief systems up to question.

If it doesn't break my leg or pick my pocket, I prefer to leave it alone.

Science is not a belief.

Of course it is. It has its own dogma, as limited as it may be, its called the 'scientific method'.

Yep, yep, yes! There is even a term for those who do not believe...Anti-Scientism .



essential elements/holy eight

1. 1. Define the question
   2. Gather information and resources (observe)
   3. Form hypothesis
   4. Perform experiment and collect data
   5. Analyze data
   6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
   7. Publish results
   8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

you just proved why it isnt a belief:yeah:

To believe the world is round is better than to believe it is flat because it is closer to the truth as far as we can tell. Certain navigational calculations would not work if the world was flat.

To believe in the theory of evolution is better than to believe in creationism, because it is much closer to the truth as far as we can tell. At least there is evidence to support it, as opposed to 0 evidence in support of any religious description of how life came to be in its present state.

To believe in science is better than to believe in religion because science encourages asking questions, and setting hypotheses, which are then tested with the intention of proving/disproving them. When the results are known, your mind is changeable to the closest approximation of truth regarding these results. Religion asks you shut your eyes and don't ask questions. 'If' God is real, who created God?

Science itself would happily support belief in a God were there any evidence to support a Gods existence. To suggest that people who have belief in science are narrow minded compared to people who believe religious explanations of life the universe and everything is quite frankly insulting. Science has never claimed that god does not exist. It has only at best stated that in view of all currently gathered evidence the idea of a God is extremely unlikely. Would religion concede in the face of evidence that proved the non-existence of a 'God'? I think not. There is a reason that the legal system is based on factual truth, evidence and proof. The reason is, this is the best way to determine the TRUTH. Back in the dark ages, courts were religion based, and they basically used to murder people being tried as a test of their innocence. If you survived you were guilty so you would be executed painfully. If you died then 'God' had had mercy and taken you to heaven. :doh:

Well put Sam :yeah:

Secular Humanism (100%)
Non-theist (83%)
Unitarian Universalism (77%)
Liberal Quakers - Religious Society of Friends (65%)
Theravada Buddhism (58%)
Mainline - Liberal Christian Protestants (48%)
Neo-Pagan (44%)
Reform Judaism (36%)
New Age (34%)
Taoism (32%)

I think non-theism wasn't my top result because I couldn't resist answering the contemporary issue questions, when in fact my (lack of) belief system should have nothing to say regarding those issues at all.

Heh I know what you mean... My girl is still trying to convert me to Christianity.. Its not my cup of tea, I guess.
Or coffee, hail coffee!

And another question: Does anyone know the current amount of Atheists and Religious Peoples on Earth?

Heh, think that's impossible to know. :DL

Yes. Attaining the numbers of true adherentes to any faith, or lack thereof, is impossible. I never put much trust into those statistics. I sit next to people in the pews who I know do not adhere to the faith. I also know professed atheists who adhere to various religious principles.

To how many decimal places? :hmmm:

:DL

Jim, is there anything you don't know? :hmmm:

I think you're wrong. Any religion would fall apart if the practitioners come to believe that the deity they worship doesn't exist.