It's by education, in fact, that we expect to convince them to do just that. Education in the power and usefulness of skepticism. Education in state-of-the-art science.

"Faith" is just a word, it can mean trust

Faith is different than trust. Trust is when you feel it's ok to rely on something or someone who has never let you down before. Faith is when you feel it's ok to rely on something or someone in spite of them letting you down, over and over again.

You cannot expect people who are not educated to replace their belief in a diety with belief in science. If they do they are wrong, and it seems some of your members advocate this.

No one is advocating this.

The scientific examples I chose were irrelevant, and could have been any, you seem rather fixated on this. It's quite cute how you try.

Are you trying to be condescending here? When your examples are disputed you resort to that?

Religion is an observable fact, try looking at it some time.

That religion exists is an observable fact. No one is disputing this.

Maths is not a science, but it is the basis for all of them.

I DO NOT BELEIVE IN GOD!

My original argument was:-

You cannot expect people who are not educated to replace their belief in a diety with belief in science. If they do they are wrong, and it seems some of your members advocate this.

People believe all sorts of crap, it's not going to change, and they are going to base their reasoning on their belief regardless of fact.

The scientific examples I chose were irrelevant, and could have been any, you seem rather fixated on this. It's quite cute how you try.

Religion is an observable fact, try looking at it some time.

There is a genuine difference between quantum theory and wave mechanics.

"Faith" is just a word, it can mean trust, reliability, or "I'm not going to think anymore, because the person who said it is a nut."

Thats your choice.

[...]While your demonstration of intellect on scientific issues is interesting[...]

If you use the word "interesting" in a euphemistic sense, then I agree with you. I found his denunciations of science to be appallingly ignorant (which would not be so bad, but for his arrogant resolve in making them). That is an example of what Ed Brayton calls virulent ignorance (although Tom Sheepandgoats' talk about Piltdown man is similar).

I mean, the bumblebee thing? Really? And "quantum and wave particle"? Does that phrase even mean anything?

On the other hand, my people present death as an enemy, out of harmony with God's purpose, not what he intended, the results of a dismal experiment in human self-rule, which he has laid out convincing steps to remedy. We think the Bible supports our position, and not the other one.

Interesting you should say that god made a mistake.
How does it feel to belong to an organization that will disfellowship you if you don't quite follow lock-step every jot and tittle of your comic book theology?

I agree, obviously. That's why religion is such a sham. The power that can ease pain isn't divine providence; it's mortal humanity. It's about people acting like people. God has nothing to do with it.

I have never had a more spiritual experience. Not because I was close to the divine - but because I was close to the human.

On the other hand, my people present death as an enemy, out of harmony with God's purpose, not what he intended, the results of a dismal experiment in human self-rule, which he has laid out convincing steps to remedy. We think the Bible supports our position, and not the other one.

Really? Are JWs immortal?

We must be careful for fear we deviate from the blog theme and Ebon kicks us both out.

Are you completely certain that it was the religion you found solace in, or the people of your church community?

Of course the people made a difference. Moreover, when comforting another over the death of a loved one, your best move is to be supportive and empathetic. If a survivor has faith in a higher power, he hardly needs you to reteach it. If not, it's a little late to instill it.

In general, religion presents death as a friend, something in harmony with God's purpose. This requires some preacher to "sell" it to the survivor as something all for the best, though it goes against every instinct. Thus, the young child dies because God is picking flowers, he has to have the best, and so he swiped them from your garden, disregarding that you only had one or two who meant all the world to you. I can't imagine how that message can bring people comfort. It mystifies me. Perhaps it has its defenders. I'm not one of them.

On the other hand, my people present death as an enemy, out of harmony with God's purpose, not what he intended, the results of a dismal experiment in human self-rule, which he has laid out convincing steps to remedy. We think the Bible supports our position, and not the other one.

Obviously, I would not expect you to accept this position as your own. But you may appreciate that the second approach could make possible a spiritual comfort at death of a loved one. I'm at a lost to see how the first approach can.

there are theories in chemistry which do the same. eg. Atomic and molecular structure, Cage effect, Mixed potential theory, Molecular orbit theory, and VSEPR theory. They each look at molecules in different ways to obtain different results due to different reqirements, some theories overlap, some do not.
That's NOT the failure of science that you seem to think it is. These are all approximations with domains of validity limited in various ways, just like Newtonian mechanics.

I agree with you, I got my figure of 1/10 from an interview of Stephen Hawking on,of all things, a daytime show called "Richard and Judy" broadcast in the uk last year. He says (as quoted above so below) "It's kind of embarassing when you can't explain where nine tenths of the universe is."
I don't know what he was talking about -- 9/10 of the Universe's mass?

He's likely referring to "dark matter" and "dark energy", which have weak nongravitational interactions, if any, with ordinary matter. That is why they are only known from gravitational effects, which do not give much by way of details about them.

I wouldn't read too much into your interpretation of how much solace a person's faith provides.

All I can report are my own observations. Religion had no effect on grief as I observed it, contrary to what its defenders try to tell me.

If you claim contradictory experience, then let me ask you - are you sure? Are you completely certain that it was the religion you found solace in, or the people of your church community?

I learned a lot during the death of my grandfather-in-law. What I saw were humans behaving the most humanely, and it was a far more meaningful experience - for all its ephemerality - than any supposedly "transcendent" religious phenomenon.

The "shortest scripure" say simply: "Jesus wept." (John 11:35) This at the death of a loved one, who, if we accept the passage as history (don't tell me you don't....I understand that), Jesus subsequently resurrected.

I wouldn't read too much into your interpretation of how much solace a person's faith provides. Though, having said that, all faiths are different. Those particular "comforts" would not be said at a funeral of one of our faith. I do agree the sayings you relate not especially comforting. We would have related different ones.