Religion...

Just out of curiousity do you believe in life after death?

...why should you care that religion fools people into believing something which is not true

It's not the false beliefs that bother me as much as the concept that it's OK (and even encouraged) to believe something with no evidence for that belief. Faith, defined as Paul defined it (belief in things unseen), is not a virtue. I think this mode of thinking allows for people to accept all kinds of things without thinking, and it allows people in power to make all kinds of crazy claims without being questioned. That is not only annoying, it is dangerous.

History has shown many times what happens when people use blind faith and emotion to make their decisions. I have no doubt that the world would be a far better place if this kind of faith was frowned upon.

What happens when the "realm of the spiritual" becomes blurry? For instance, it was once considered heresy to even suggest that humans were not a special creation and fundamentally different from other life forms on this planet. We now know that's not true, but many people refuse to accept this. Their faith can't coexist with our current scientific understanding of the world.

You would like to push this problem away as if it's just extremism, but this problem exists here even among mainstream Christians. The problems we're having with school-boards forcing anti-evolution teachings into classes are a direct result of their inability to accept evidence that goes against their faith.

My point was that anything that teaches someone to accept an idea "on faith" (any idea) without support is a bad thing. Yet for Christians it is a standard teaching. I cited the example of Paul above, and I often hear this quoted by Christians. They like to say they believe in rationalism and that they don't have blind faith, but if you prod them hard enough eventually they'll go back to their "some things you just have to take on faith" defense.

My point was that the "blind faith is good" argument is the root of the problem. It's true that not all Christians are creationists, but a large percentage are. Example: Gallup: More Than Half of Americans Reject Evolution, Back Bible. They have no evidence to support creationism, and if you press them they will admit that they have no evidence that the Bible is the Word of God. In most cases they will end up falling back on the "just have faith" defense, and you can see the real problem. People want to believe in spirituality, but when you combine ignorance of science with a fundamentally flawed sense of logic and a dependence on "faith" then invariably you will get results like the poll shown above. You will get a general lack of respect for science and even a strong resistance to scientific knowledge that contradicts that blind faith.

This is what I think is dangerous. Not in a "they might become terrorists" sort of way, but a "they will slow or stop scientific progress" kind of way.

I don't think religion is necessary for a well adjusted society. It may have been in the past, but I think we've reached a point where it's more of a danger (due to extremism and hindrance to progress) than a benefit.

On the subject of proving things...

Why--when talking of that controversial "big bang"--do we continue to call it "The Big Bang Theory" instead of "The Big Bang Fact?"

I've also only heard the term "The theory of evolution."

So, why not teach our beginnings in a number of ways and call them theories:

The Big Bang Theory, The Theory Of Evolution, and The Theory Of Creation

What I believe you'll come up with by keeping an open mind if some kind of middle-ground that makes parts of all of the theories factual.

Ainsley: Because that would be equivocation. When we say "Big Bang Theory" or "Theory of Evolution" then we have a particular (scientific) definition of "theory" in mind. The "Theory of Creation" does not meet those criteria, but calling it one implies that it does. It basically implies that creationism is just as scientifically valid as the other theories even though it clearly is not.