that would set a very dangerous precedent indeed. a slippery slope resulting in thought crime. that is not a world in which I desire to live.

that being said, in the absence of objective evidence for god, the belief is delusional. existence cannot be confirmed any other way. philosophers have tried and failed repeatedly to establish existence through a purely a priori basis.

"In the absence of compelling objective evidence for God's existence, therefore, religious belief is, alethically speaking, pathological and, by two-factor standards, delusional." - Dr. Ryan McKay, "Hallucinating God? The Cognitive Neuropyschiatry of Religious Belief and Experience"

before I get some incredibly asinine reply like "well you can't disprove it either", I recommend you look up the argumentum ad ignorantium fallacy since you're essentially saying "it's okay to believe until proven otherwise" which is backwards, fallacious thinking. then pursue a study in epistemology and learn what separates an opinion from a justified belief.

My opinion is right and yours is wrong. I will further emphasize this by attempting to sound smarter than I actually am.

"Quote here to make my opinion seem concrete, because hey, even a phd agrees with me." - Dr. Random Person II.

Don't even know why I'm looking at this thread. It's the same conversation that happens everytime religion is even mentioned on the internet. Bring on the frothy mouth militants!

Religion isn't factual, nor reasonable. People beleive what they want. 

As for this:

"well you can't disprove it either", I recommend you look up the argumentum ad ignorantium fallacy since you're essentially saying "it's okay to believe until proven otherwise" which is backwards, fallacious thinking. 

That is simply an assumption. That assertion means that it cannot be proven and thus is irrelevant in discussion of rationality not justification for the belief itself.

A set of irrational beliefs does not conflict with a rational mind.

Edit: Its a pointless endeavor to try and blame irrationality on Religion, irrationality is a part of Human Nature, as a construct of Humanity, Religion, which is not formed via the scientific method, would be no exception. Especially, when some in this thread are blaming Religion for the very things that it bans against in the various religions of the world, a delightful ironic display of ignorance.

Not in the next 20 years, but I think as the human race continues to move forward technically, religion will certainly become less important...

Maybe in 1000 years religion will become some minor niche thing, but or now unfortunately its going to stay, and be used as an excuse to do stupid things.

No. Next question.

Well, not necessarily. We would never know if a higher power could be proven or disprove. However, if we were to assume some force existed that would resemble the concept of god, would not that being then become part of science? This is why rational thinking is the only way forward. If this "power" exist, then It is part of the natural world. Otherwise, it does not exist and therefore there is no god. I tend to believe in the latter.

Example: if I would have described the force that exist within nuclear energy for a person 200 years ago, that person would have said it to be false. It would be hard for me to prove or disprove it but when we discovered this energy a 100 years later, this immense power became part of how we can explain the world around us. The premise of a god is very farfetched, but the moment we prove its existence, it becomes science.

Only because the need for religion will decrease, not because of some confliction with Science, Technology, or Rationality (which is doesn't have).

Religion basically covers things that Science doesn't. In an effect, Science replaces Religion, although they don't conflict, many technoligically advanced civilizations were heavily religious like the Ottomans or the Greeks. There will always be things Science can't explain, because it depends on observation. Observation deppends on perception, and our perception is ultimately limited.

and it would take about 85 years just to get to the nearest star in our neighboorhood.

http://www.universetoday.com/15403/how-long-would-it-take-to-travel-to-the-nearest-star/

Not to mention the majority of the universe is unobservable. Thus its out of the reach of Science, outside thoses edges "here be dragons"

long story short: there will always be a place for religion

The natural world is what is observable. This is what rationality has domain over. Religion isn't rational. The premise of God cannot be proven, science can't cover it because its out of our observation.

And according to the scietific method, that person that said it was false would be wrong, because it wasn't disproven. That's why the Big Bang is still a theory, although its bascially accepted as fact, until we prove it remains a theory, but it might be unprovable by its very nature.

Also see my above post, the really long one.

It's amazing how much attention religion always gets. The answer to this thread is obvious: No. Yet there's still such a lively discussion about religion going on.

I'M currently in my 2nd week of a 3 week missionary trip to Nigeria building houses, fixing houses, tending to farms, and helping children overcome traumas of past and present(in part by the recent bombings and tribal discord)

not all religious people are looking for a debate, some are trying to put a little good in the world.

p.s. dont have the internet to take full part in a debate