Belief in God is scientific.

I have to say that you're pretty much wrong about everything.Belief in some sort of God is based much more on tradition than experience.While the brain may be compared to a computer it certainly can't say that it is programmed in a way that would let us have much confidence in a conclusion like that - if anything, the opposite.And scientific conclusions aren't decided by the majority vote of people in general because that doesn't work.

quote:

---

How much more Paul? Being a scientific man i don't think you would of just assumed that? You must be memory quoting from a United Nations survey or something similar you have read?

---

I think that it is generally known that religious experiences are relatively uncommon, and usually happen to people who are already believers. If you have real evidence to contradict that then I'm ready to look at it.

Given that you only seem to think of majority opinion as scientific if the opinion is one you happen to find acceptable, I'd say that even you don't really believe it.

In other words, evidence and sound reasoning beat majority opinion.Thanks for admitting that you were wrong.

quote:

---

Yeah i do admit iam wrong it was never my intention to say i was right and everyone wrong, merely that its strange that belief without proof is a very real thing practiced by billions of people yet belief cant be factored into any kind of scientific method because the science police of the day say you cant

---

If course it isn't strange at all that science doesn't doesn't accept a method that doesn't work.

quote:

---

I would like to thank you for admitting you are part of the majority opinion within this thread and demonstrating so beautifully the effects of the fallacy on the search for truth

---

Which presumably is an irrational attempt at an attack on my position.

Argumentum ad populem holds an opinion to be true just because the majority hold it (regardless of WHY they hold it)Peer review, at least in the ideal, consists of experts examining the methodology and reasoning of a paper,possibly suggesting revisions and the editors of the journal making a decision based on the reviews. A paper which fails to pass peer review can be edited or even submitted unchanged to another journal.I really don't see that much in common between the two.

Because you made the mistake of promoting a hideously bad OP?

quote:

---

Not sure if you have read the rest of the posts in this topic but this has nothing to do with denomination, or belief in any one named deity.

---

If it's about the idea that the majority opinion should be accepted as science then it SHOULD cover those questions, and a lot more. The fact that it doesn't is a strong indication that you're looking for an excuse to proclaim your belief as scientific, not a rational reason.(Not that the gosh-wow stuff about complexity WOULD be a rational reason in the first place, but it's telling that even you don't seem to believe that it's a good argument)

If you want to discuss any of the arguments on that website feel free to start a thread. However I have to say that the introductory essays gave me no feeling that it has anything much to offer.