Religious Poll

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by August

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

I disagree, but only about the nature of the question versus your answer. Your observation is true if they "came to believe" that their deity didn't exist. Sammi79's question seems to me to be asking whether most believers would "come to belive" the nonexistence if proof could indeed be shown. I see these as two different things entirely.

I fit your category of one who "came to believe" in the non-existence of God, though "doubt" is the better word for me than "belief".

On the other hand, a great majority of believers have such great faith that even if some proof could be established, their reaction would be to not accept it and try to disprove it.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I
On the other hand, a great majority of believers have such great faith that even if some proof could be established, their reaction would be to not accept it and try to disprove it.

How did this turn into a discussion about Obama?

Couldn't resist. Back to the original topic.

[August]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I disagree, but only about the nature of the question versus your answer. Your observation is true if they "came to believe" that their deity didn't exist. Sammi79's question seems to me to be asking whether most believers would "come to belive" the nonexistence if proof could indeed be shown. I see these as two different things entirely.

I fit your category of one who "came to believe" in the non-existence of God, though "doubt" is the better word for me than "belief".

On the other hand, a great majority of believers have such great faith that even if some proof could be established, their reaction would be to not accept it and try to disprove it.

As would anyone when it comes to their long held and cherished beliefs. Imo it should be difficult to change those.

But "proof" means many things to many people. One person might point to, say a dinosaur fossil, as "proof" that the Bible is wrong about evolution and therefore that God does not exist.

I look at Bibles story of creation, indeed organized Religion itself, as an attempt to explain a concept that is way too advanced for most people to fully understand, especially during the age it was written. It's like how a child might be told that the stork brought their new baby sibling instead of getting into all the mechanics of conception and pregnancy which are too advanced for them to understand at their age.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by August

But "proof" means many things to many people. One person might point to, say a dinosaur fossil, as "proof" that the Bible is wrong about evolution and therefore that God does not exist.

Good point. Even science has its devout faithful. As there are atheists who also act like true believers.

[August]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Good point. Even science has its devout faithful. As there are atheists who also act like true believers.

Yep and some of them display an intolerance akin to the worst religious inquisitor who ever put The Question to a heretic.

Originally Posted by August

Yep and some of them display an intolerance akin to the worst religious inquisitor who ever put The Question to a heretic.

And unlike god's believers, they are supported financially and politically by government.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Good point. Even science has its devout faithful. As there are atheists who also act like true believers.

That was my point in post #140.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by The Third Man

That was my point in post #140.

Your point seemed to be that the scientific method is a 'dogma', when in fact you can't have science or any other kind of learning without established rules.

I compared 'some' atheists with 'most' religious fanatics. You compared science with religion, and there is no comparison.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Your point seemed to be that the scientific method is a 'dogma', when in fact you can't have science or any other kind of learning without established rules.

I compared 'some' atheists with 'most' religious fanatics. You compared science with religion, and there is no comparison.

The climate change fiasco should allow you, a thinker, to come to another conclusion regarding science visa vis religion. They are far more similar than not.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by The Third Man

The climate change fiasco should allow you, a thinker, to come to another conclusion regarding science visa vis religion. They are far more similar than not.

You need to explain more deeply. Science can only look at facts and attempt to explain. Any scientist worth his salt knows that today's pet theory may be tomorrow's best joke. If that happens, any good scientist looks at the new evidence and starts over again, trying to put the pieces together.

With religion it's just the opposite. You start with a "Holy Scripture" which by its very nature cannot be proven or disproven, and then attempt to come up with facts that agree with your ideas.

The fact that there are some people who think that way about scientific theories reflects on them, not on the nature of science itself, and they are in the minority. The Scientific Method, which you call 'Dogma' in an attempt to equate it with religion, simply requires that everything be tested and tested again, and that nothing be believed until the facts are all in. The fact that the facts are never all in is something that scientists have to live with.

Faith, on the other hand, relies on the absence of facts, and requires believers to ignore any evidence to the contrary.

Any scientist who acts like a believer runs the risk of not being a scientist for long, and most know it. Any believer who acts like a scientist runs the risk of not being a believer for long, and most are afraid of it.

[Sammi79]

Originally Posted by The Third Man

The climate change fiasco should allow you, a thinker, to come to another conclusion regarding science visa vis religion. They are far more similar than not.

I have to debate this. Science has no similarity with religion, I challenge you to point out exactly what is so similar about them in your opinion, Third Man. Science is not a 'Belief Structure' as religion is. Science accepts that whatever little it claims to know with a measure of certainty may be proved wrong in some future moment. Science is purely a method of determining truth to the highest possible level of accuracy through the testing of hypotheses, and the recording and analysis of data - EVIDENCE. Also it's benefit to you, me, and human kind in general is immeasurable not to mention obvious.

Atheism could be considered a belief structure, similar to religion in that it is a personal choice to believe certain explanations about life, the universe and everything. The fact that atheists would more likely choose scientific explanations over mythological or fantastical ones only points to a more realistic, more open minded, more contemporary viewpoint about life in general.

Religious belief is a belief structure in which untruth is a fundamental necessity. You can say it should be viewed metaphorically which means it depends on personal interpretation. The holy books themselves do contain some moral truths which can be valuable lessons for anyone. I believe August said in a previous post 'to try and explain a concept that is way too advanced for them to comprehend at their present level of development' I agree I just think it's about time people grew up a bit. Moral development does not exclusively come from religious involvment. There is a view that without good ol' organised religion, that people would rape, murder and steal themselves into anarchy. If that is truly the case, why is god(fearing) not stopping them now?