Religion or Atheism? An open forum.

[thir]

I repeat, science has no place in any discussion about the existence of god. Science is nothing more than mankind's observations about the natural world. Whether or not god "exists" (in a supernatural sense) is so far beyond the scope of scientific enquiry as to be forever out of reach. Therefore to demand scientific proof is pointless.

However, there are scientists -believers as well as non-believers - searching for proof of what is said in the bible. Mostly, I think, archeologists, but also other kinds.

If I believe something is, that is surely the same as my believing in it. Therefore if I believe something is not, how is that different from my not believing in it?

The word 'belief' may be used about a religious feeling as well as a conviction based on facts or logic.

Religions also offer explanations through faith and belief. Where they are shown to be false, the explanation is changed to accord with general perception.

Religions are not generally 'shown to be false'. This is not possible, as you pointed out earlier.

Evolution. The reason we no longer toss virgins into volcanoes.

What has that got to do with evolution?

[MMI]

@ thir

The Bible is an important historical record, but it is just one source. Archaeologists are always looking for ways to verify biblical texts, but I doubt they are looking to prove that God revealed himself to someone at any particular time or place.

I agree that I maintain religions cannot be proved or disproved, but what they teach can. Thus the Catholic Church no longer holds that the Earth is at the centre of the universe.

What has [tossing virgins into volcanoes] got to do with evolution?

I simply meant that religions change. Once we might have thought the only way to placate the god of the volcano was to offer him brides, but now we know better.

[Thorne]

The Bible is an important historical record, but it is just one source.

The problem is that it is also a religious document, and it has been shown that sometimes the history has been skewed to agree with the religion.

Archaeologists are always looking for ways to verify biblical texts, but I doubt they are looking to prove that God revealed himself to someone at any particular time or place.

Depends on the archaeologist. Certainly up until the last hundred years or so they were almost universally trying to reconcile the Bible with history. Not so much anymore, but there are some who still try.

I agree that I maintain religions cannot be proved or disproved, but what they teach can.

But what they teach can be taught without the religious trappings far more effectively.

Thus the Catholic Church no longer holds that the Earth is at the centre of the universe.

At least not physically. Theologically? I think that might be a different story.

Once we might have thought the only way to placate the god of the volcano was to offer him brides, but now we know better.

And science, not religion, is the reason we know better.

[Thorne]

The word 'belief' may be used about a religious feeling as well as a conviction based on facts or logic.

Exactly! And in these kinds of discussions it always seems to lean far more heavily to the side or religion than logic. Which is why I try to avoid using it in that manner.