No. Most people understand geography because they studied it in grade school, and the concepts are not especially difficult. They don't understand, say, molecular biology, or how something like aspirin works. They have "evidence", of course, that aspirin works, but it's not like they conducted their own double-blind study.

And if the average person did happen to read a peer-reviewed study on the efficacy of aspirin, it's not all that obvious that they would understand it.

So yes, some science is taken on faith by some people. And some of these people have other faith-based beliefs.

Why? The default state is not belief in a non-testable, invisible, unnecessary entity. If you want us to believe in it--and by extension, if religions want non-believers to accept their claims on truth--they have to provide evidence. It's not "Why not Jesus?" It's, "Why should we believe you?"

I don't think I mentioned Jesus. Nor did I make any "claims on truth." Mainly, I was arguing that the average, 100 IQ person takes a lot "on faith" (in spite of the wealth of graduate-level scientific research available on the internet). Religion is just one more thing to buy into..."why not". Some people really feel it, and some don't.

As for you and your pals: I have no interest in providing atheists with evidence of god, since I don't have any.

The computer screen staring at me is evidence, not proof. Do you know the difference?

I could just as easily say that the computer screen is proof of god, rather than science...and some people would.

As far as astrology is concerned, that concept is proveably wrong. The existence of god is not provable one way or the other. And since you're only interested in factual information about the world, why would you want to argue with me at all?

I would put it (religion) in the same category as astrology and alchemy.

Astrology deals with psychological typing based on time of birth, and has been disproven by the science of psychology. Religion is concerned with the the existance of extra-human consciousness, among other things, and can be neither proved nor disproved by science. Religion is outside the realm of scientific inquiry.

So I don't see how they're in the same catagory. Except maybe for eggheads.

...and people keep harboring the audacity of believing that knowing ends with human rhetoric, the microscope, and meditation.

This is beautiful...unfortunately I have moved on to insulting eggheads.

That is, implanting appropriate quantum dot electrodes in the temporal lobes to nullify the religiosity drive.

Hey, this sounds cool. I hear the government is interested. But, well, I hate to break it to you...it got a bit political. Turns out, they're going to use it on you. Something about RDD (Religiosity Deficit Disorder). Sorry...bummer.

Once I had a supervisor (well, just barely a supervisor) who was convinced I was gay, or that I should be gay, or whatever. He would always say "well, if you decide to switch, you have to come to me first." He said this over and over...of course it was harassment.

It was a campus job, so I quit when I graduated.

It's an ironic statement about the nature of hand-produced art in a mass-produced medium...or something like that.

Beni comes out of the closet...

Beni: Shit

Kansas: The Mossad is on my ass, uh, I mean, my tail.

Beni: I love your tail.

Kansas: You love Shlomo?

Beni: No, your ass.

Shlomo: Her ass is only a cover. It's necessary.

Kansas: I beg your pardon?

etc.

Wow...I think I bought coffee from you today.

St. Thomas Aquinas

mean people suck

- anon

It's culturally-determined. But you knew that.

Well, Catholic doctrine says man is sinful. So I don't really see the contradiction.

Ask not what theology can do for you, but what you can do for theology.

Religion explains creation: Genesis

Religion explains morality: The Ten Comandments

Religion explains the charismatic leader: The Passion of Christ

etc.

"The Pope? How many divisions has he got?"

- Joseph Stalin

My conclusions about atheists are based not so much on Stalin as on people like you.

Translation: "I can't argue against your facts or your logic, but I'm a Christian and I can still smear you."<-i>

I haven't said what I think of atheists, only that I've based my opinion on people like you. Logically, this cannot be a smear.

I stated some things that religion explains. Your question was not "things that religion explains to walter_map." The answer to that question is obvious: nothing.

I stated that believers doing evil is not inconsistant with religion, due to the doctrine of the sinful nature of man. Guess you just don't like that argument.

You seem to be denying that the communist holocaust of this century was at least partly inspired by atheist philosophies.

You are entitled to your opinions, all of them.

1 all wars are religious wars

2 a morality of personal responsibility is really the way to go (this dovetails nicely with 1)

3 God == unicorn

4 Ok ok, god != unicorn. But the truth test for inclusion in the "god" set is the same as the truth test for inclusion in the "unicorn" set

5 physics is way cool dude

I was drawn into the thread-jack like a moth to the flames...or maybe just a 60-watt lightbulb.

Interesting that the poor deluded faithful are identified as the problem here, since nuclear weapons, cars, jet travel, and genetically engineered crops were all invented by scientists and engineers. Or to put it another way, the Middle Ages did not put the planet at any great risk.

Physician, heal thyself.

Recently it has come to light that Sen. Obama borrowed part of a speech from another politician.

Luckily, Sen. Clinton has been able to borrow 8 years of political experience from her husband to even the playing field.