>>>>>An aetheist is dangerous at best because he has his own standards.
>>>>
>>>>A priest and an atheist are exactly they same. They both believe without knowing. The one believes in God and the other believes in science. Both are believers and both are prisoners of their belief.
>>>
>>>So the priest will change his beliefs as soon as new proof is found?
>>
>>As you well know, you cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God to another (and one should really define what one means with that word as well). Therefore, to believe that there is a God or to believe that there is no God are both beliefs. The belief you chose will depend on your conditioning (and, yes, for most of us we are totally and utterly conditioned).
>
>I didn't mean the whole system of belief, but an equivalent of, say, proof which would render string theory meaningless. The "believer" in science would accept the new world view as valid (and a real scientist, if equipped with means, would try to validate or invalidate the proof on his own). The equivalent of that would be to find out that there were actually 13 apostles and that the scriptures were faked for political reasons, Big Brother style, vaporizing one of the guys (because he was a girl?). What would a priest do then? Change his belief likewise, or stick to the same old?
>
>The whole point of sticking to the scientific method is that it works even if you don't believe in it, and if you don't, you can see for yourself.
>
>>It is not about the scientific method vs. faith (which your question alludes to). It is about whether one believes in the existence of God or whether one believes that there is no God. For the vast majority of mankind they simply don’t know one way or the other and yet will categorically state their belief nevertheless.
>
>I answered this in this fit of scribomania today.
>
>>Update: I think the direct answer to your stated question would be yes, a priest will change his belief assuming (a) the man is rational and not delusional, and (b) the proof is truly beyond doubt.
>
>Even in the example above?

It is interesting how historical beliefs, magic, and philosophical ideas are viewed by science today:

Bhagavad Gita's dual worlds and today's polarity
Attonement and entanglement theory
Upanishads, Vedantic philosophy, ankhya Hindus and the Buddhists discussions on Universal Flux and Heisenberg's Matrix Mechanics and Schrödinger's Wave Mechanics
Sankhya Hindu paradox and Schrödinger's Cat paradox
Pashupata Astra
Einstein’s relativity theory and Max Planck’s famous Quantum Theory
Zohar and a 10 dimensional universe...

and on and on....