I’ll bite, why?
Because if believers admit that evidence is a good thing, they are stuck with the problem that there is never, ever going to be any evidence for their fantasies.
They have had to convince themselves that faith is a good thing and not an act of desperation; so good that it trumps all considerations of fact or logic (or often even of morality). Which leads directly to the conclusion that if faith is the ultimate good, then evidence is bad because evidence means that you don’t need to have faith anymore.
You have got to be Kidding me right? Like just yanking my effing chain?
God himself comes down and Demonstrates Beyond all doubt that he is real, he loves us, and wants us to all be happy. Heathens and unbelievers everywhere are lining up to Join whatever church is the right one and you, YOU become the atheist?
You don’t really wonder why atheists think believers are delusional, you just like getting a reaction out of people and stirring up drama.
So, your point is that you can spout error without end, as long as you truly believe that your ultimate point is correct?
That sounds pretty much as though you hold the same world view you ascribe to religionists.
As I noted, I have no interest in this ongoing feud and I am not taking sides. However, if you are going to post factual errors on various topics, you are going to get corrected. If you do not wish to be corrected, learn your facts.
If science can’t fund itself, then maybe it’s not worth studying?
If elderly widow women can’t feed themselves, maybe they should just die?
Science is best when describing things of the flesh, religion is best when describing things of the spirit. The main difference is that religion is understandable by the ignorant, whereas science typically requires a college degree. This might be shocking to you, but half the world’s population is of below average intelligence.
Baylor University teaches evolution. Does MIT teach theology?
Science is the basis of modern technological civilization. It has to put it mildly more than paid for itself.
There are many more differences than that. And there are no “things of the spirit”.
Why should MIT teach theology? It’s a specialty subject not applicable to anything outside of itself, and unless they figure out how to build a god it has nothing to do with the subjects MIT specializes it.
Because Baylor University teaches fact, you think it only fair that MIT teach fiction?
Because “the spirit” has never been shown to exist, all descriptions of “the spirit” are equally valid, which means that all descriptions of “the spirit” are equally invalid.
Some people believe this has already happened. I read about it in a book…
The OP wonders what the effect would be if the religious types stopped going to church and learned more about science, with the implication that they would surely see the error of their ways if only they would educate themselves.
I myself wonder what would happen if the science types started going to church and realized there is much more to the reality of our existence than what can be proven in a lab.
The ignorance goes both ways. Personally, I have no problem believing in science and believing in God at the same time. And I think that’s the real answer to the OP… I don’t think you’d get a bunch of people rejecting their faith, but just ones who know a little bit more about science and go on believing just the same.
First, many do go to church. And second, churches have nothing real to teach them.
Critical1, is it against the rules to accuse another poster if trolling. Please don’t do so again or it will go poorly for you.
So, it’s not scientific proof but a statistical/logical game kinda thingy. Still, far, far away from scientific proof.
Why would you stack chips? It’s not like you can cash them. Once again you’re either missing the point or understanding it too much.
Even if faith included some element of “unshakable belief”, people lose/gain/change faiths all the itme. Believeing without proof is what you do.
when believer try the “if x is true and y is true the God exits” it’s never considered enough.
Upon review I didn’t write that sentence in the way I wanted.
If a god’s existance could be proven through pure science (i.e. equations, quantum effects, dark matter interactions with unripe bananas, FTL barions) then that god isn’t the god I believe in. You will not find Him in the LHC, kickass as it may be.
By definition, my god isn’t accessible through pure intelectual/experimental methods. He came to Earth and walked among us 2000 years agos, but I’m always told here that personal experience is (well) short of scientific proof.
Of course, if the Second Coming happens tomorrow I’ll be there on my knees worshiping my Saviour.
Now you are contradicting himself. If he can actually show up, then his existence (if not his nature) is certainly provable scientifically or otherwise. You could just walk over and poke him.
Also, unless you are over 2000 years old nothing that happened back then is part of your personal experience.
Ever read The Wizard Of Oz?
(bolding mine)And still you play the stalest religious game in the book-switching the topic from “evidence” to “proof”, then setting the standards for your side childishly low and the standards for those you oppose impossibly high. I have given you solid, verified and repeatable EVIDENCE for my position. Either discuss this solid, verified and repeatable EVIDENCE, or admit that you can’t and fling a handful of something else at the wall.
…a book of stories, many of which have anonymous authors, written over a long period of time.
Ok. And? A logical syllogism backed by evidence is more than enough. We use that sort of reasoning every day of our lives.
[QUOTE=Ají de Gallina]
Why would you stack chips? It’s not like you can cash them. Once again you’re either missing the point or understanding it too much.
[/quote]
Because if the universe does survive my death, as all available evidence tells me, that informs how I live my life. I can’t cash my own life insurance, either, I have it to take care of my fiance in the event of my death.
[QUOTE=Ají de Gallina]
Even if faith included some element of “unshakable belief”, people lose/gain/change faiths all the itme. Believeing without proof is what you do.
[/quote]
If proof isn’t available, then go with the strongest evidence available.
[QUOTE=Ají de Gallina]
when believer try the “if x is true and y is true the God exits” it’s never considered enough.
[/quote]
Well, try me. What syllogism can you construct with the conclusion “Therefore God exists”?
The poster who has a bug in his ear hasn’t actually proved that I was in error. But discrediting ME wouldn’t discredit the basic idea. And yes, even if I’m completely full of it re these “facts,” the essential premise is still valid. That poster is attempting to discredit the premise by attacking the details. Intellectual cheapo tactic.
FACT: religion is nonsense. (I don’t see how you can say that I hold the same worldview as the magical thinkers when I say that the test of whether something is real is whether or not there is evidence for it, and they say that test is how hard you believe in it, ignoring any lack of evidence. Seems like diametrically opposite POVs to me. But you’re the mod–go ahead and twist things 
)
acknowledged.