OPEN DISCUSSION BOARD

[JLS]

Poker,

As I stated earlier, my use of the word 'fact' is in the scientific sense -- as in the Scientific Method -- and that is the same sense as the dictionary defines the word.

All I'm saying is that if we are going to have a discussion of religion using the English language, let's use the words as an English dictionary defines them.

Using the Scientific Method, no religion nor no God can be proven to exist. All religions are faith based.

I realize that (most) religious people accept many (all) of the things they believe as being fact. That's were the problem is. What they believe is based on faith, not fact.

And as you say, and rightly so -- many people have had to change their religious beliefs based on what science has shown to be true.

For instance, it was once believed (as religious fact) that the earth was the center of the universe; in fact, that the earth was the center of our solar system. Many people were imprisoned -- in fact, tortured and often put to death in cruel ways by religious zealots -- for believing otherwise. We all know what the Scientific Method did with that religious 'fact'.

Notice I used the word zealot. It is not intended as an insult. The word means to show excessive enthusiasm. That's all. It doesn't mean that the zealot is crazy or stupid, or even mentally sluggish. But it would be a fair description of one who thinks of his religious beliefs as being fact-based and not faith-based. It takes too much enthusiasm to accept as fact that which is based only on faith.

Another example: most religious people do not accept evolution as fact.

I say: evolution is fact, and religious people should faithfully believe that God created evolution as a means of continuing His work.