[photon]

Wait... so the only way a person is able to believe in god is because of upbringing? Then how did we get in this mess in the first place? I think you're being a little too limiting in your argument here.

No, I said the reasons were different, and gave a few examples with an "etc" which means there are more reasons. I'm trying to say you don't simply believe there's a God because it hasn't been proven there isn't one, which you agree with:

You're right, that doesn't make logical sense. But... I never said that. You're putting words in my mouth and then trying to shoot me down with them.

No, I didn't put any words in your mouth, I was only trying to clarify what other posters were saying in response to your statement " Until someone can definitively prove that God does not exist, I think I'll choose to belive that there is something out there greater then myself." and why they responded that way. I see the "choose" in there.

You don't understand what "belief" is then. The moment knowledge is transformed from physical sensation into cognitive thought, something has to be accepted blindly in order to "trust" the validity of the conclusion. So, I still insist that even scientific understanding requires a person to take a blind leap of acceptance at some point along the chain.

If my child has an infection, I'll take them to a doctor (one who is trained in human medicine) and consider their advice. If the advice is reasonable to me, I'll follow it. If not, I'll seek other recommendations. But I'm not sure what all this has to do with the topic at hand...

Belief is a psychological state where an individual is convinced of the truth of a proposition. Science is outside belief since the truth of a proposition can be proven regardless of any individual's belief.

Your estimation of the reasonableness of a doctor's recommendation is based on what? Belief that the doctor knows what he's talking about? That's a pretty poor reason. Rather it should be based on a body of evidence that demonstrates the efficacy of the remedy, something that exists outside belief.

I'm trying to illustrate my point with an example. Your point is that there is always still a blind trust, what would the example be in this case, where from going to the doctor to accepting treatment you think is reasonable is the blind leap of acceptance.

I don't see the difference. In arguing that there is no evidence for God, people are actively trying to deny the existence of god. I agree though that most atheists would change their mind with the presence of undeniable proof... but by the very concept of a god, that is impossible to attain.

But the two are different. Arguing that there's no evidence is simply trying to describe the observed reality (which by your admission is that there is no God). They're not saying there is no God, they're just agreeing with you that by definition of the concept of God there is no undeniable proof; any belief in God is by faith, not evidence.

(Which as an aside is again part of the point of contention of this thread; people are trying to take things that are in the realm of faith and bring them into the realm of science, but not abiding by the "rules" of science)

My point, again, was that atheists are nothing more then a different "religious" group trying to stake territory for their own belief system.

Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Whether a person tries to justify their conception of reality using a religious text or scientific proofs makes no difference to the behavior of the people involved.

The difference between a religious text and a scientific proof is one is actually an accurate description of physical reality, the other attempts to make an accurate description of the "inner" reality (the mind, the soul, the human condition, whatever you want to call it). The two talk about different things, and using one to describe the other will result in things like this creation museum, something that fails at either task.

What behaviour specifically are you talking about?

A proper education involves exposure to any and all contradictory opinions and theories.

BS. So people who go to learn about the weather should not only be taught about weather patterns and water and all that stuff, but they should also be taught that some women are witches and can change the weather, and if they are then they should be burned at the stake? Because that was a theory, a very popular one for quite a long time. It may not be popular now, but that could be a contradictory opinion and theory about weather.

A proper education involves exposure to pertinent contradictory opinions and theories, not any and all.

Atheists are just as guilty as any other group of trying to restrict knowledge to only that of which they approve.

Aside from the fact that "atheists" aren't a group with an agenda, BS. Please post evidence to this.